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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

May 29, 2013

p0522 

# Order

Clerk May 29, 2013

146714

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146714

COA: 313750

Wayne CC: 12

- 004559

- 01

- FC

SHAWQUANDA BOROM,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302 (H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration, as on leave granted, of: (1) whether a parent’s failure to act to prevent

harm to his or her child satisfies the requirement for a knowing or inten tional act under

the first

- degree child abuse statute, MCL 750.136b(2), in light of MCL 750.136b(3) that

separately punishes omissions and reckless conduct as second

- degree child abuse; (2) if

so, whether the failure to prevent a person who may be dangerou s to the child to have

contact with the child violates the first

- degree child abuse statute; (3) whether there is a

common law duty of a parent to prevent injury to his or her child; and, (4) assuming that

there is such a duty under the common law, whether aiding and abetting under

MCL 767.39 can be proven where the defendant failed to act according to a legal duty,

but provided no other form of assistance to the perpetrator of the crime.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CARLA WALLACE

,

Appellant,

v.

ARCELORMITTAL VINTON, INC.

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00095

- C V

Appeal from the

34 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2012

- DCV

- 06529 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appell ant’s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until August 27 , 201 5

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE APPELL ANT ’S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Alejandro Acosta, III , the Appell ant ’s attorney,

prepare the Appell ant ’s brief and forward the same to t his Court on or before August 27 , 201 5

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14 th day of August , 20 1 5

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 147 (Monday, August 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1848-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Kansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Kansas (FEMA-1848-DR), dated June 24, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 24, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Kansas is hereby amended to include the following area 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of 
June 24, 2009.

    Morris County for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-18409 Filed 7-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
§ 1.167(m)-1 Class lives. ( a ) For rules regarding the election to use the class life system authorized by section 167(m), see the provisions of § 1.167(a)-11.
(Sec. 167(m), 85 Stat. 508 (26 U.S.C. 167))
[T.D. 7272, 38 FR 9986, Apr. 23, 1973]
Ms. Donna Diano

Air Adventures Hawaii, LLC

P.O. Box 3350

Lihue, HI 96766

Dear Ms. Diano:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t process 

your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request

We entered your August 1, 2011, exemption request on behalf of Air Adventures Hawaii, 

LLC into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0833), but we are unable to process your request 

any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the 

following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to 

send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption.
2

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3

Project No.: AAM-11-410-E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-101:KJones:08/04/11:Doc#32881

ARM-1/100/101:Program Office AAM-800

Statistics: Reject Letter.doc, 380 words

Original, 04 Aug 2011 14:24

Style Index 23 Excellent for a Legal Document

Average Sentence Length 18 Excellent

Passive Index 0 Excellent

MS DONNA DIANO

AIR ADVENTURES HAWAII LLC

PO BOX 3350

LIHUE HI 96766
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            47,447
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                       59,166
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 190,602
<PP&E>                                           455,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                   149,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   545,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            114,777
<BONDS>                                          258,490
<COMMON>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     545,122
<SALES>                                          350,203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 350,203
<CGS>                                            237,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    308,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   13,523
<INCOME-TAX>                                       5,260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                8,263
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       8,263
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.76


</TABLE>
#### Walter C. Otto, Jr., Executor of the Estate of Walter C. Otto, Sr., Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy A. Kropp and Irene U. Kropp, Defendants-Appellants.

Gen. No. 52,450.

First District.

February 10, 1969.

Sehiff, Hardin, Waite, Dorschel, of Chicago (W. Donald McSweeney, Peter V. Fazio, Jr., and Gerald D. Chiss, of counsel), for appellants; Pratt & Warvel, of Chicago (Charles J. Pratt and William H. Warvel, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

PRESIDING JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH.

Not to be published in full.
**Exhibit 34.5**

 

 

(logo) pwc

** **

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanyingReport on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the “Company”), an indirectsubsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’sRegulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial taxservice provider (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv),1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which theCompany has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsiblefor the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertionbased on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standardsof the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidenceabout the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, anddetermining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedureswere not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that mayhave affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believethat our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company compliedwith the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for commercialmortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects.

 

February 4, 2016

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas,Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
AFS

- 13

- 407

- E June 26, 2013

Exemption No. 10279 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2005

- 20708

Mr. Eric Bergessen

Senior Director, Operations

World Airways, Inc.

101 World Drive

Peachtree City, GA 30269

Dear Mr. Bergessen :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption

No. 10279

. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations

.

The Basis for Our Decis ion

By letter dated June 4, 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of World Airways, Inc. (WA)

, for an extension of Exemption No. 102 79 . That

exemption from § § 121.665 and 121.697(a)(1), (b), and (c) of Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations allows WA to substitute a computer application signature for the signed load

manifest required by these sections.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest an d safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a

precedent , and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to WA.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10279

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefor e, under the

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has

delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2015

, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Deputy Director, Flight

Standards Service
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000855876
<NAME> CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,090
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             223
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,170
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    301,365
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          50,595
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            51,013
<LOANS>                                        625,965
<ALLOWANCE>                                     11,961
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,049,959
<DEPOSITS>                                     729,750
<SHORT-TERM>                                    76,066
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             11,289
<LONG-TERM>                                     53,814
<COMMON>                                        16,514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,049,959
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 44,116
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               16,459
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    60
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                60,635
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              20,880
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,897
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           31,738
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,232
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 16,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,037
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      19,037
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,883
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.47
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,799
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,279
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   411
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,700
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                11,350
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,338
<RECOVERIES>                                       717
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               11,961
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,232
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          9,729
        

</TABLE>
* 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. 06-61034 Summary Calendar JAMES ALTON GIPSON Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ROCKY WILLIAMSON, Officer; DERRIC K MINGO; ALANDO SELLERS, Officer Defendants-Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:04-CV-00213
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Alton Gipson, Mississippi prisoner # 21821, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he asserted, inter alia, an excessive force claim against Rocky Williamson, D errick Mingo, and Alando Sellers, correctional officers at the Marion/Walthall Correctional Facility (MWCF). Williamson, Mingo, and Sellers
now appeal the district court’s rejection of the qualified immunity defense United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-61034

2 asserted in their motion for summary judgment. See Hampton v. Oktibbeha County Sheriff Dep’t, 480 F.3d 358, 363 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court’s finding that there was insufficient evidence in the record to analyze the issue of the reasonableness of the appellants’ conduct determined only a question of “evidence sufficiency.” SeeJohnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995). As such, it is not a final, appealable order. See id. “Unlike denials of qualified immunity which are immediately appealable because they turn on an issue of law,” Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 509 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985)), the appellants’ immunity defense turns on the factual issue “whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintai n or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440, 1446 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and footnote citations omitted). As the presence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding qualified immunity precludes this court from exercisingjurisdiction, this appeal must be dismissed. Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313-20. APPEAL DISMISSED.
exv10w41



 






EXHIBIT 10.41




February 26, 2007




Pieter Van der Vorst

SVP & CFO

(Delivered by hand)



Dear Pieter:



This is to inform you of your 2007 compensation as approved by the Sybase, Inc. Compensation
Committee:





	 	1.	 	Cash Compensation (effective January 1, 2007)






	 	1.	 	Annual base salary: $378,206
	 
	 	2.	 	Incentive bonus target: $276,090
	 
	 	3.	 	Total target cash compensation (TTC): $654,296




The terms of the incentive bonus are set out in the Executive Leadership Team Incentive Plan.





	 	2.	 	Long-Term Incentives






	 	(a)	 	Sybase Stock Option Grant (4-year vest)






	 	•	 	10,500 options






	 	(b)	 	Restricted Stock Grant (performance vest)






	 	•	 	8,600 shares






	 	(c)	 	Restricted Stock Grant (time vest)






	 	•	 	4,700 shares




The vesting terms are set out in the relevant equity award grant agreement.



I also want to take this opportunity to thank you for your contributions in 2006. I look forward
to your support and contributions in 2007.




Sincerely,




	 	 	 
	/s/ John S. Chen

	 	 
	John S. Chen
	 	 
	Chairman, CEO and President
	 	 






CC: HR File
AAM-13-337-E

May 07, 2013

 Exemption No. 9930B

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0746

Ms. Lynn Michaud

Interstate Aviation, Inc.

62 Johnson Avenue

Plainville, CT 06062

Dear Ms. Michaud:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption

No. 9930, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the 

conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 17, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Interstate Aviation, Inc. (Interstate Aviation), for an extension of Exemption 

No. 9930, as amended. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations allows Interstate Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulation, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Interstate Aviation.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9930, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Interstate Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at 

all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Interstate Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9930, as amended, to 

September 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy General Air Surgeon