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

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 January 24, 2018

p0117

Order 

Clerk

January 24, 2018

156408

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 156408

COA: 330359

Berrien CC: 2014-004247-FH

KEVIN PATRICK KAVANAUGH,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 6, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this 

order addressing: (1) what deference should be accorded to the trial court’s factual 

findings where a recording of events under consideration is available to an appellate 

court; (2) what evidence may be considered in determining whether there was clear error 

in the trial court’s factual findings; and (3) what standard of review is to be applied under 

such circumstances. In addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an 

appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must 

provide the appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall 

file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s brief. The 

appellee shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use 

of the appendix filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant 

within 14 days of being served with the appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit 

mere restatements of their application papers.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense 

Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court 

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
[No. 19584-4-II.

Division Two.

October 31, 1997.]

#### Melinda Ashley, *Individually and as Guardian, Appellant,*v. Russell C. Hall, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 93-2-10301-3, Grant L. Anderson, J., entered May 5, 1995. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater, J.; Seinfeld, J., dissenting.
###### Editorial Note on Part 176

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 176 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; and 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005.

#### § 176.250 Poly-1,4,7,10,13-pentaaza-15-hydroxyhexadecane.

Poly-1,4,7,10,13-pentaaza-15-hydrox-yhexadecane may be safely used as a retention aid employed prior to the sheet-forming operation in the manufacture of paper and paperboard intended for use in contact with food in an amount not to exceed that necessary to accomplish the intended physical or technical effect and not to exceed 6 pounds per ton of finished paper or paperboard.
[No. 19463-5-II.

Division Two.

October 31, 1997.]

#### Lite & Rite, Inc., *Respondent,*v. Kantilal D. Nathwani, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clallam County, No. 94-2-00614-5, George L. Wood, J., entered April 14, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, A.C.J., concurred in by Morgan and Armstrong, JJ.
<PAGE>   1


                            [MRDI CANADA LETTERHEAD]


July 13, 1999                                                       0310/L999-2m
                                                                   VIA FACSIMILE
                                                                  (604) 688-8030

                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT GEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS

We hereby consent to the references to our firm in the Form 20-F being filed by
Minco Mining & Metals Corporation as well as references to and extracts from
the following reports prepared by our firm:

1.   Chapuzi Gold Occurrence Report for Minco Mining and Metals Corporation
     dated December, 1996.

2.   Technical Site Visit to Smelters and Mine Facilities of Baiyin Non-Ferrous
     Metals Corporation, Ganzu Province, People's Republic of China, dated
     December, 1995.

3.   Proposed Development Strategy for the Changba Lijiagou Underground Mine
     dated December 9, 1996.



MRDI


/s/ M.B. (MURRAY) LYTLE
M.B. (Murray) Lytle
Supervising Mining Engineer


MBL/pm
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

February 24, 2009 

d0217 

Order 

 

February 24, 2009 

137636 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137636 

 COA: 285837 

Wayne CC: 07-011048 

JAMAHLL BOUDREAUX, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 1, 2008 

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.
<PAGE>   1



                             EPL Technologies, Inc.


                                  EXHIBIT 11.0

                 Computation of Basic Earnings per Common Share
                      and Diluted Earnings per Common Share



<PAGE>   2


                                  EXHIBIT 11.0

EPL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

COMPUTATION OF BASIC LOSS PER COMMON SHARE AND
DILUTED LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
(in thousands except per share data)
--------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Twelve Months Ended December 31,
                                                --------------------------------
                                                  2000        1999        1998
                                                --------    --------    --------
<S>                                             <C>         <C>         <C>
Net loss                                        $(24,262)   $(14,416)   $ (7,781)

Deduct:
Accretion, discount and dividends
 on preferred stock                                1,548       1,202       2,754
                                                --------    --------    --------

Net loss for common shareholders                $(25,810)   $(15,618)   $(10,535)
                                                ========    ========    ========

Weighted average number
  of common shares outstanding                    32,575      14,222      10,599
                                                ========    ========    ========

Basic loss per share                            $  (0.79)   $  (1.10)   $  (0.99)
                                                ========    ========    ========


Net loss for diluted loss
 per share computation                          $(24,262)   $(14,416)   $ (7,781)

Weighted average number
  of common shares outstanding                    32,575      14,222      10,599

Common share equivalent applicable to:
  Series A convertible preferred stock                24          40         531
  Series C convertible preferred stock                             0          13
  Series D convertible preferred stock                 0       3,615       1,238
  Series A warrants                                    0          15          15
  Series D warrants                                    0         202         202
  Other warrants                                   6,148          62          75
  Stock options                                      204       2,039       1,831
  Convertible debt                                    83           0           0
Less common stock acquired
  with net proceeds                                3,225       5,973       2,534

Weighted average number of common shares
  and common share equivalent used to compute   --------    --------    --------
  diluted loss per share                          35,809      17,222      11,970
                                                ========    ========    ========

Diluted loss per share                          $  (0.68)   $  (0.65)   $  (0.65)
                                                ========    ========    ========
</TABLE>
Subject: Meeting with Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council Regarding 

Secondary Lead Smelting and Primary Lead Smelting Residual Risk and Technology Reviews

Date: October 7, 2011

Participants:

Earthjustice

Emma Chause

James Pew

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Jane Williams

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Nathan Topham

Steven Silverman

Chuck French

Summary:

A meeting was held between members of the EPA and representatives of Earthjustice and NRDC 

to discuss the proposed secondary and primary lead residual risk and technology reviews 

(RTRs). The EPA provided clarification of the requirements included in the primary and 

secondary lead RTR proposals.

Representatives of Earthjustice and NRDC highlighted a number of issues raised in their public 

comments and urged the EPA to take action in response to those comments. The following issues 

were raised by Earthjustice and NRDC during the meeting:

• The proposed rules did not follow the requirements of section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA)

• The use of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as a measure of risk is 

not protective enough because the NAAQS only requires an adequate margin of safety 

while section 112 requires an ample margin of safety

• The EPA should have evaluated requirements that would prevent the loss of one IQ point 

in children

• The EPA should have considered an ambient standard of 0.02 μg/m3 averaged over one 

month, or a lower concentration

• The IEUBK model used to develop the NAAQS benchmark of 0.15 μg/m3

underestimates risk to children by underestimating soil ingestion rates and only using a 

95% confidence interval that would not properly account for children living in close 

proximity to a lead smelter
• Background levels of lead resulting from lead smelter emissions should be incorporated 

the risk assessments due to high blood lead levels that can occur from living/working in 

areas subject to contamination

• The EPA cannot consider cost or feasibility in determining whether risk is acceptable

• Advances in technology should have led to stricter standards under the section 112(d)(6) 

technology review

• The compliance dates for the rules should not exceed 90 days

• The South Coast Air Quality Management District rule for secondary lead smelters 

should have been considered in this rule, specifically the hourly emission limit and 

averaging time for the ambient standard

• Section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to satisfy section 112(d)’s requirement that the 

standards must reflect the best performers in a category

• The EPA must consider environmental justice in the decision making process

• The EPA must set a numerical standard for mercury from secondary lead smelters and 

standards for organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from primary lead smelters

• The EPA must use an uncertainty factor to account for early childhood exposure in risk 

assessments

• The EPA must consider cumulative impacts beyond the source category being considered

• The EPA should add the results of the multipathway and inhalation risk assessments to 

determine the level of risk
§ 1.503 Who must develop my FSVP and perform FSVP activities? ( a ) *Qualified individual.* A qualified individual must develop your FSVP and perform each of the activities required under this subpart. A qualified individual must have the education, training, or experience (or a combination thereof) necessary to perform their assigned activities and must be able to read and understand the language of any records that must be reviewed in performing an activity.
( b ) *Qualified auditor.* A qualified auditor must conduct any audit conducted in accordance with § 1.506(e)(1)(i) or § 1.511(c)(5)(i)(A). A qualified auditor must have technical expertise obtained through education, training, or experience (or a combination thereof) necessary to perform the auditing function.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

CASEY WAYNE WOLLENZIER, a.k.a.

Butch, a.k.a. Snap,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 50419

D.C. No. 2:16

- cr

- 00207

- MWF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Casey Wayne Wollenzier appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty

- plea conviction and 96

- month sentence for possession of an

unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Pursuant to Anders v.

California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Wollenzier’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 50419

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Wollenzier the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se sup plemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Wollenzier waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of

an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the right

to appeal most aspects of his sentence. Our independent review of the record

pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds

for relief as to the voluntariness of Wollenzier’s plea or any aspects of the sentence

that fall outside the scope of the waiver. We therefo re affirm as to those issues.

We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See

United States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1333 Gum ghatti. ( a ) Gum ghatti (Indian gum) is an exudate from wounds in the bark of *Anogeissus latifolia,* a large tree found in the dry deciduous forests of India and Ceylon.
( b ) The ingredient complies with the following specifications: ( 1 ) *Viscosity of a 1-percent solution.* Not less than the minimum or within the range claimed by the vendor.
( 2 ) *Limits of impurities* — ( i ) *Arsenic* (*as AL*). Not more than 3 parts per million (0.0003 percent);
( ii ) *Ash* (*acid-insoluble*). Not more than 1.75 percent;
( iii ) *Ash* (*total*). Not more than 6.0 percent;
( iv ) *Heavy metals* (*as Pb*). Not more than 40 parts per million (0.004 percent); and
( v ) *Lead.* Not more than 10 parts per million (0.001 percent).
( 3 ) *Loss on drying.* Not more than 14 percent dried at 105 °C for 5 hours.
( 4 ) *Identification test.* Add 0.2 ml of diluted lead acetate as outlined in “Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists,” 13th Ed. (1980), section 31.178(b), p. 529, under “Dilute Basic Lead Acetate Standard Solution,” which is incorporated by reference (Copies are available from the AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 481 North Frederick Ave., suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, or may be examined at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*), to 5 ml of a cold 1-in-100 aqueous solution of the gum. An immediate, voluminous, opaque precipitate indicates acacia. A small precipitate or clear solution which produces an opaque flocculent precipitate upon the addition of 1 ml of 3 *N* ammonimum hydroxide indicates gum ghatti.
( c ) The ingredient is used in food under the following conditions: Maximum Usage Levels Permitted
Food (as served)
Percent
Function Beverages and beverage bases, nonalcoholic, § 170.3(n)(3) of this chapter
0.2
Emulsifier and emulsifier salt, § 170.3(o)(8) of this chapter. All other food categories
.1
Emulsifier and emulsifier salt, § 170.3(o)(8) of this chapter.
( d ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.
[42 FR 14653, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 5612, Feb. 14, 1984]
Wdesk | Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.2
	
		
	
	 






PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL


January 5, 2017


Dear Krishna,


We are pleased to confirm the following additional compensation arrangements applicable to you as the Interim Chief Executive Officer of Weatherford. These compensation arrangements were approved and ratified at the meetings of the Compensation Committee and the full Board on December 12- 13, 2016.  


Supplemental Quarterly Cash Payment


You will receive quarterly cash payments of $400,000, prorated from November 9, 2016, for as long as you are employed as interim CEO. A pro rata payment will be made, as applicable; through the date you are named to a new role or terminate your employment with the company. Payments will be made via the normal payroll at the end of the quarter, beginning December 2016, and be subject to all tax and social security withholdings. 


Additional Performance Bonus:


You will have an additional Performance Bonus opportunity of up to $1.5 million. The performance criteria to earn the full bonus amount are based on successful completion of the following objectives, each weighted at 25% to allow for a partial bonus opportunity.  


•Successful equity raise of up to  $500 million
•2nd successful equity raise of up to  $500 million
•Debt raise of up to $500 million
•Solution/elimination of pressure pumping leases (approx. $300 million)


Any Performance Bonus earned will be payable 90 days after a permanent CEO of the company is named.  This Performance Bonus, which if earned is not payable prior to January 1, 2017, will be forfeited if you voluntarily terminate your employment with the company prior to the date the Performance Bonus is payable.  All Performance Bonus payments are meant to be exempt from 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 


Supplemental quarterly payments and Performance Bonus amounts detailed above will not to be applied in the calculation of any retirement, health, life insurance, or severance benefits. 


Your current compensation, including base salary, target bonus, perquisites and long-term incentive opportunity, will remain unchanged during your tenure as interim CEO. 


If you have any questions regarding these items, please contact me at your earliest convenience.  


Sincerely,


/s/ James Lukey
James Lukey
Vice President, Human Resources
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7144

RAYMOND PETERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ALTON R. ANDERSON; JOHN WILLIAMS; D. C.

KINGSBURY,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Judge. (CA-95-320-5-CT-BR)

Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 20, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 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. Peterson v. Anderson, No.

CA-95-320-5-CT-BR (E.D.N.C. July 5, 1996). 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
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employee Earnings and Hours in Nonmetropolitan Areas of the South and North Central Regions, June 1965

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Employee Earnings and Hours in Nonmetropolitan Areas of the South and North Central Regions, June 1965 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1552*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 										June 1967,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4713,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
H. Res. 95 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 7, 2017. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. O’Halleran and 

Mr. Suozzi. 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Ms. Jackson Lee and Ms. 

Schakowsky. 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Mr. Schneider. 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES: Mr. Clay. 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Welch, Mr. Cartwright, and Mr. DeSaulnier. 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY: 

Mr. McNerney, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Foster, Mr. 

Takano, Ms. Hanabusa, and Mr. Crist. 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Ms. Clarke of New 

York, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Ms. Adams, and Mr. 

Espaillat. 
2 

•HRES 95 EH 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. Sablan, Ms. 

Esty, and Mr. Peters. 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: Ms. Judy Chu of 

California. 

Attest: 

Clerk.