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

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

Order 

September 27, 2017

155541

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155541

COA: 329298

Wayne CC: 15-004873-FH

ORONDE GRAHAM,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 16, 2017 

judgment 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.

MARKMAN, C.J. (concurring).

I concur in this Court’s order denying leave to appeal, given that the Court of 

Appeals correctly held that the 180-day period in MCL 780.131(1) does not begin to run 

until the prosecutor has received formal notice from the Michigan Department of 

Corrections (MDOC) regarding a pending warrant against an inmate. People v Williams, 

475 Mich 245, 259 (2006). I write separately only to note that the statute neither places 

any time limitation on when the MDOC must communicate formal notice regarding a 

pending warrant against an inmate, nor provides a defendant a remedy if the MDOC fails 

to communicate such notice. The lack of such provisions arguably undermines the 

apparent purpose of the statute. 

Here, the MDOC did not communicate formal notice to the prosecutor that a 

warrant was pending against defendant-- who was incarcerated at the time the complaint 

was filed-- until approximately 16 months after the complaint against defendant was 

filed, by which time defendant was no longer incarcerated. This Court has recognized 

that the potential benefits of the 180-day period in MCL 780.131(1) include “protecting 

concurrent sentences, minimizing obstructions to prison rehabilitation, aiding in 

preventing untried charges from affecting early release, and clearing court dockets and 
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.

 September 27, 2017

s0920

2

Clerk

prosecutors’ offices of stale charges.” People v Woodruff, 414 Mich 130, 137 (1982), 

overruled on other grounds by People v Smith, 438 Mich 715 (1991). Each of these 

purposes is arguably undermined when, as in this case, the MDOC does not timely 

communicate notice to the prosecutor after a complaint against an inmate has been filed, 

because communication of such notice is a precondition to the running of the 180-day 

notification period. I write only to call this matter to the Legislature’s attention so that it 

might, if it so chooses, take action to address this concern.

MCCORMACK and BERNSTEIN, JJ., join the statement of MARKMAN, C.J.

WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6859

JOHN M. RICKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL A. LANSING,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-119-AM)

Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John M. Ricks, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, Rachel Celia

Ballow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John M. Ricks appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. 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. See Ricks v. Lansing, No. CA-01-119-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 23,

2001). 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
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.                  

###### Delaware River Basin Commission

          - 18 CFR Part 410

# AGENCY:

Delaware River Basin Commission.

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 19, 2010, amending the schedule of water charges. This correction clarifies that the amended rates are proposed to take effect in two stages, on January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2012, respectively, and not on January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011 as stated in the preamble.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Pamela M. Bush, 609-477-7203.

*Correction:*                         In proposed rule FR Doc. 2010-3219, beginning on page 7411 in the issue of February 19, 2010, make the following correction in the                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section. On page 7412 in the second column, in the second full paragraph, replace the text following the colon on the sixth line of the paragraph with the following:                    

“The consumptive use rate is proposed to be increased from $60 to $90 per million gallons effective on January 1, 2011 and from $90 to $120 per million gallons effective on January 1, 2012. The non-consumptive use rate is proposed to be increased from $.60 to $.90 per million gallons effective on January 1, 2011 and from $.90 to $1.20 per million gallons effective on January 1, 2012.”

Dated: March 5, 2010.

Pamela M. Bush,

Commission Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-5219 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6360-01-P
March 27, 2014 

United States Environmental Protection Agency — Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

Attention: Wren Stenger, Director of Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division 

RE: Freeport LNG Liquefaction Project — Permit No. PSD-TX-1302-GHG; Request for 

Transfer of Permit Application to TCEQ 

Dear Mr. Stenger, 

Freeport LNG Development has received your letter, dated March 27, 2014, requesting us to 

state our intentions to either proceed with EPA as our greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting 

authority or request a transfer of our pending GHG prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) 

permit to TCEQ. Freeport LNG Development hereby selects to designate the TCEQ as our 

GHG PSD permitting authority and requests that our GHG PSD permit application for 

our Pretreatment and Liquefaction Plant (Permit No. PSD-TX-1302-GHG), and all 

relevant materials related thereto, be transferred to TCEQ for final processing and 

issuance. Freeport LNG Development would greatly appreciate EPA's close collaboration with 

TCEQ in this transition process. If there is any assistance we can provide during this transition 

period, we are happy to help. 

Freeport LNG Development recognizes that TCEQ has not yet been fully and fmally vested with 

the authority to issue GHG PSD permits. In the unlikely event that EPA fails to timely finalize 

its approval of the SIP or rescind the FIP, however, Freeport LNG Development would expect to 

re-engage EPA in order to obtain the necessary GHG PSD permit for its planned facility. 

In closing, Freeport LNG Development would like to talce this opportunity to thank the EPA for 

its assistance through the GHG permitting process to date, including the time and effort taken by 

EPA staff inembers Aimee Wilson and Jeff Robinson. EPA staff has been responsive and 

professional in their efforts on our permit application. 

If you have any questions regarding this transition request, please contact me at your 

convenience at 713-333-4271 or by email at mmallett@freeporting.com . 

Sincerely, 

MarkW. M lett, MPE. 

Senior V.P. — Operations & Projects 

Freeport LNG Development, L.P. 

333 Clay Street, Suite 5050 • Houston, Texas 77002-4173 

Phone:713-980-2888•Fax:713-980-2903
§ 507.31 Food safety plan. ( a ) You must prepare, or have prepared, and implement a written food safety plan.
( b ) One or more preventive controls qualified individuals must prepare, or oversee the preparation of, the food safety plan.
( c ) The written food safety plan must include: ( 1 ) The written hazard analysis as required by § 507.33(a)(2);
( 2 ) The written preventive controls as required by § 507.34(b);
( 3 ) The written supply-chain program as required by subpart E of this part;
( 4 ) The written recall plan as required by § 507.38(a)(1);
( 5 ) The written procedures for monitoring the implementation of the preventive controls as required by § 507.40(a);
( 6 ) The written corrective action procedures as required by § 507.42(a)(1); and
( 7 ) The written verification procedures as required by § 507.49(b).
( d ) The food safety plan required by this section is a record that is subject to the requirements of subpart F of this part.
[80 FR 56337, Sept. 17, 2015, as amended at 84 FR 12491, Apr. 2, 2019]
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

## Cancellation

# Date and Time:

Thursday, March 4, 2010, at 2 p.m.

# Place:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).

# Status:

This hearing has been cancelled.

# Audit Hearing:

The Jefferson Committee.

* * * * *

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Darlene Harris, Acting Commission Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

# Person to Contact for Information:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer,  Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Signed: Darlene Harris,

Acting Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-4772 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
```

[115th Congress Public Law 12]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 131 STAT. 76]]

Public Law 115-12
115th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
   Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior 
  relating to Bureau of Land Management regulations that establish the 
procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to 
  the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. <<NOTE: Mar. 27, 
                        2017 -  [H.J. Res. 44]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the 
Interior relating to ``Resource Management Planning'' (published at 81 
Fed. Reg. 89580 (December 12, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force 
or effect.

    Approved March 27, 2017.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 44:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017):
            Feb. 7, considered and passed House.
            Mar. 6, 7, considered and passed Senate.
DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2017):
            Mar. 27, Presidential remarks.

                                  <all>
```
§ 1.162(l)-1 Deduction for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals. ( a ) *Coordination of section 162(l) deduction for taxpayers subject to section 36B* — ( 1 ) *In general.* A taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 162(l) for specified premiums, as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, not to exceed an amount equal to the lesser of— ( i ) The specified premiums less the premium tax credit attributable to the specified premiums; and
( ii ) The sum of the specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments, as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the additional tax (if any) imposed under section 36B(f)(2)(A) and § 1.36B-4(a)(1) with respect to the specified premiums after application of the limitation on additional tax in section 36B(f)(2)(B) and § 1.36B-4(a)(3).
( 2 ) *Specified premiums.* For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, specified premiums means premiums for a specified qualified health plan or plans for which the taxpayer may otherwise claim a deduction under section 162(l). For purposes of this paragraph (a)(2), a specified qualified health plan is a qualified health plan, as defined in § 1.36B-1(c), covering the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or a dependent of the taxpayer (enrolled family member) for a month that is a coverage month within the meaning of § 1.36B-3(c) for the enrolled family member. If a specified qualified health plan covers individuals other than enrolled family members, the specified premiums include only the portion of the premiums for the specified qualified health plan that is allocable to the enrolled family members under rules similar to § 1.36B-3(h), which provides rules for determining the amount under § 1.36B-3(d)(1) when two families are enrolled in the same qualified health plan.
( 3 ) *Specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments.* For purposes of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments equal the amount of the specified premiums minus the advance credit payments attributable to the specified premiums.
( b ) *Additional guidance.* The Secretary may provide by publication in the Federal Register or in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter) additional guidance on coordinating the deduction allowed under section 162(l) and the credit provided under section 36B.
( c ) *Applicability date.* This section applies for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
[T.D. 9822, 82 FR 34610, July 26, 2017]
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5500 Infrared lamp. ( a ) *Identification.* An infrared lamp is a device intended for medical purposes that emits energy at infrared frequencies (approximately 700 nanometers to 50,000 nanometers) to provide topical heating.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device, when it is an infrared therapeutic heating lamp, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 890.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 84 FR 71818, Dec. 30, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3510 Knee joint femorotibial metal/polymer constrained cemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A knee joint femorotibial metal/polymer constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace part of a knee joint. The device limits translation or rotation in one or more planes and has components that are linked together or affined. This generic type of device includes prostheses composed of a ball-and-socket joint located between a stemmed femoral and a stemmed tibial component and a runner and track joint between each pair of femoral and tibial condyles. The ball-and-socket joint is composed of a ball at the head of a column rising from the stemmed tibial component. The ball, the column, the tibial plateau, and the stem for fixation of the tibial component are made of an alloy, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum. The ball of the tibial component is held within the socket of the femoral component by the femoral component's flat outer surface. The flat outer surface of the tibial component abuts both a reciprocal flat surface within the cavity of the femoral component and flanges on the femoral component designed to prevent distal displacement. The stem of the femoral component is made of an alloy, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, but the socket of the component is made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. The femoral component has metallic runners which align with the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene tracks that press-fit into the metallic tibial component. The generic class also includes devices whose upper and lower components are linked with a solid bolt passing through a journal bearing of greater radius, permitting some rotation in the transverse plane, a minimal arc of abduction/adduction. This generic type of device is limited to those prostheses intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 on Form 10-Q of Biopure Corporation for
the period ended April 30, 2003, I, Thomas A. Moore, Chief Executive Officer,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   the Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2003, 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 Form 10-Q for the period ended April
          30, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
          condition and results of operations of Biopure Corporation.



/s/ Thomas A. Moore
-----------------------------------
Thomas A. Moore
Chief Executive Officer
June 16, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 1814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated August 28, 2009, and published in the Federal 
Register on September 8, 2009, (74 FR 46233), National Center for 
Natural Products Research-NIDA MProject, University of Mississippi, 135 
Coy Waller Lab Complex, University, Mississippi 38677, made application 
by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be 
registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed in schedule I:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marihuana (7360)...........................  I
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to cultivate marihuana for the National Institute 
on Drug Abuse for research approved by the Department of Health and 
Human Services.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
National Center for Natural Products Research-NIDA MProject to 
manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is 
consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated 
National Center for Natural Products Research-NIDA MProject to ensure 
that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. 
The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 
21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a 
bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

     Dated: January 6, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-506 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### Carol C. Johnson *v.*Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Branford et al.

*Frank J. Dumark,*town counsel, for the appellee (named defendant).

*Carol C. Johnson,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued June 3

decided June 3, 1969

The motion by the named defendant to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County is granted.
§ 640.54 Processing. ( a ) *Processing the plasma.* ( 1 ) The plasma shall be separated from the red blood cells by centrifugation to obtain essentially cell-free plasma.
( 2 ) The plasma shall be placed in a freezer within 8 hours after blood collection or within the timeframe specified in the directions for use for the blood collecting, processing, and storage system. A combination of dry ice and organic solvent may be used for freezing: *Provided,* That the procedure has been shown not to cause the solvent to penetrate the container or leach plasticizer from the container into the plasma.
( 3 ) Immediately after separation and freezing of the plasma, the plasma shall be stored and maintained at −18 °C or colder until thawing of the plasma for further processing to remove the Cryoprecipitated AHF.
( b ) *Processing the final product.* ( 1 ) The Cryoprecipitated AHF shall be separated from the plasma by a procedure that has been shown to produce an average of no less than 80 units of antihemophilic factor per final container.
( 2 ) No diluent shall be added to the product by the manufacturer prior to freezing.
( 3 ) The final container used for Cryoprecipitated AHF shall be colorless and transparent to permit visual inspection of the contents; any closure shall maintain a hermetic seal and prevent contamination of the contents. The container material shall not interact with the contents under customary conditions of storage and use in such a manner as to have an adverse effect upon the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of the product. At the time of filling, the final container shall be identified by a number so as to relate it to the donor.
[42 FR 21774, Apr. 29, 1977, as amended at 47 FR 15330, Apr. 9, 1982; 50 FR 4139, Jan. 29, 1985; 64 FR 45373, Aug. 19, 1999; 66 FR 1837, Jan. 10, 2001; 66 FR 40890, Aug. 6, 2001]