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.

 June 11, 2014

p0604

Order 

Clerk

June 11, 2014

148971

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148971

COA: 312364

Oakland CC: 2012-241272-FH

ROBERT TUTTLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a registered qualifying patient under 

the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., who makes 

unlawful sales of marijuana to another patient to whom he is not connected through the 

registration process, taints all aspects of his marijuana-related conduct, even that which is 

otherwise permitted under the act; (2) whether a defendant’s possession of a valid 

registry identification card establishes any presumption for purposes of § 4 or § 8; (3) if 

not, what is a defendant’s evidentiary burden to establish immunity under § 4 or an 

affirmative defense under § 8; and (4) what role, if any, do the verification and 

confidentiality provisions in § 6 of the act play in establishing entitlement to immunity 

under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8. 

We direct the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future 

session of this Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Hartwick (Docket No. 

148444).

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.
#### § 136.116 Reports.

In addition to the reporting and information requirements provided in [45 CFR 75.341](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/section-75.341) through [75.360](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/section-75.360) made applicable to grants under this subpart by [§ 136.114](/on/2024-09-17/title-42/section-136.114), each recipient of Federal financial assistance shall make such reports and information available to the Indian people served or represented by such recipient as and in a manner determined by the Secretary to be adequate.

Note:

This section is a requirement in addition to [45 CFR part 75](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/part-75) and is required by section 5(c) of Pub. L. 93-638.

[[40 FR 53143](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/40-FR-53143), Nov. 14, 1975, as amended at [50 FR 1855](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/50-FR-1855), Jan. 14, 1985. Redesignated and amended at [67 FR 35342](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/67-FR-35342), May 17, 2002; [81 FR 3010](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-3010), Jan. 20, 2016]
Exhibit 32.2

HARLEYSVILLE NATIONAL CORPORATION  CERTIFICATION  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the Harleysville National Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gregg J. Wagner, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|by                                                                                     |  | GRAPHIC | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------- | 
|Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Harleysville National Corporation | 

Date:
February 25, 2004

78

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2967 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 2967

  To extend the authorization of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 
              Control Act of 1978, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1996

 Mr. Schaefer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the authorization of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 
              Control Act of 1978, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT EXTENSION.

    Section 112(a) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 
of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7922(a)) is amended by striking ``1996'' and 
inserting ``1998''.
                                 <all>
```
H. R. 2969

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To eliminate the Board of Tea Experts by repealing the Tea Importation Act of

1897.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Tea Tasters Repeal

Act of 1996’’.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF TEA IMPORTATION ACT OF 1897.

The Tea Importation Act (21 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is repealed.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this

Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10415

(Summary Calendar)

TONY FITZGERALD COLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH WADLEY, EL AL.,

Defendants,

KENNETH WADLEY,

Defendant-Appellee.

.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(1:95-CV-117-C)

November 6, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tony Fitzgerald Cole, appealsthe dismissalof his civilrights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 (d), now § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(I), and the denial of his motions for a default judgment against

Defendant Wadley and for service of process on him, as well as the denial of his motion for the

appointment of counsel. His claim asserted various violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
2

by prison officials of the Texas Department of Corrections, Amarillo, Texas. 

Cole’s appeal from the denial of his motion for a default judgment is precluded from review

by this court under the law of the case doctrine. Cole v. Wadley, et al, No. 96-10315 (5th Cir. June

5, 1996) (unpublished); Chevron U.S.A., Inc. V. Traillour Oil Co., 987 F.2d 1138, 1150 (5th Cir.

1993). The law of the case doctrine generally precludes the reexamination of issues decided on

appeal, either by the district court on remand or by the appellate court itself on subsequent appeal.

Chevron, 987 F.2d at 1150. Cole’s argument that the district court erred when it dismissed Defendant

Wadley for failure to obtain service of process pertains to a nonfinal order which is not reviewable

by this court. See Dardar v. Lafourche RealtyCo., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay,

Inc. v. United States Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 1981). His appeal from that order is

DISMISSED. 

Cole further appeals the refusal of the district court to appoint counsel for him. However, a

civil rights complainant does not have an automatic right to the appointment of counsel. Ulmer v.

Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). Moreover, absent exceptional circumstances, a trial

court is not required to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Id. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to

appoint counsel. Asto the remaining issues Cole raises, we have reviewed the record and Cole’s brief

and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for essentially the same reasons adopted by and set forth

by the district court. Cole v. Wadley, et al., No. 1:95-CV-117 (N.D. Tex. Dec 28, 1995; April 4,

1996).

DISMISSED in part and AFFIRMED in part.
§ 800.204 Certification. ( a ) The term *certification* means a written statement signed by the chief executive officer or other duly authorized designee of a party filing a notice, declaration, or information, certifying under the penalties provided in the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (18 U.S.C. 1001) that the notice, declaration, or information filed: ( 1 ) Fully complies with the requirements of section 721, the regulations in this part, and any agreement or condition entered into with the Committee or any member of the Committee, and
( 2 ) Is accurate and complete in all material respects, as it relates to: ( i ) The transaction; and
( ii ) The party providing the certification, including its parents, subsidiaries, and any other related entities described in the notice, declaration, or information.
( b ) For purposes of this section, a *duly authorized designee* is: ( 1 ) In the case of a partnership, any general partner thereof;
( 2 ) In the case of a corporation, any officer or director thereof;
( 3 ) In the case of any entity lacking partners, officers, and directors, any individual within the organization exercising executive functions similar to those of a general partner of a partnership or an officer or director of a corporation; and
( 4 ) In the case of an individual, such individual or his or her legal representative.
( c ) In each case described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, such designee must possess actual authority to make the certification on behalf of the party filing a notice, declaration, or information.
Note 1 to § 800.204 :
A sample certification may be found at the Committee's section of the Department of the Treasury website.
§ 560.412 Extensions of credit or loans to Iran. ( a ) The prohibitions contained in §§ 560.204 and 560.207 apply to but are not limited to the unauthorized renewal or rescheduling of credits or loans in existence as of May 6, 1995, such as the extension of a standby letter of credit.
( b ) The prohibitions contained in § 560.209 apply, among other things, to the unauthorized renewal or rescheduling of credits or loans in existence as of March 15, 1995.
( c ) The prohibitions contained in §§ 560.204, 560.207 and 560.209 apply to, among other things, credits or loans in any currency.
HomeJapan

# Japan

601 items

        -    TIAS  		Japan (15-914) – Atomic Energy Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Regulatory Matters	  September 14, 2015 
        -    TIAS  		Japan (14-1121.1) – Agreement on Space Cooperation with Observatory Satellites	  November 21, 2014 
        -    TIAS  		Japan (14-720) – Protocol Extending the Agreement on Cooperation in Research and Development in Science and Technology of June 20, 1988	  July 20, 2014 
        -    TIAS  		Japan (14-304) – Agreement for Defense Research and Development	  March 4, 2014 
        -    TIAS  		Japan (13-1121.1) – Agreement Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation in the Use of U.S. Land Remote Sensing Satellite Data	  November 21, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		Japan (13-1008) – Agreement on Space Cooperation	  October 8, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		Japan (13-605) – Agreement Extension for Outer Space Solar Physics Satellite (SOLAR-B) Project	  June 5, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		Japan (13-528) – Agreement Memorandum of Understanding for Sharing the Space Situational Awareness Services and Information for Safety of Space	  May 28, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		Japan (12-1102.1) – Agreement for Cooperative Research on Hybrid Electronic Propulsion Program	  November 2, 2012 
        -    TIAS  		Japan (12-1019) – Agreement Extending the Agreement Concerning Cooperation on the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Program	  October 19, 2012 

previous page1…5455565758…61next page

Back to Top
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 20 (Monday, February 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2131]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,347; TA-W-61,347A]


Wellman, Incorporated Administrative Office Fort Mill, SC; 
Including Employees of Wellman, Incorporated, Administrative Office 
Fort Mill, SC, Working Out of Fresh Meadow, New York and Commack, NY; 
Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on May 4, 2007, applicable to workers of 
Wellman, Incorporated, Administrative Offices, Fort Mill, South 
Carolina. The notice was published in the Federal Register on May 17, 
2007 (72 FR 27853).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in providing technical and administrative support services for the 
firm's production of polyester and nylon fibers.
    New information shows that worker separations have occurred 
involving employees (Mr. Michael Bermish and Ms. Gisela Katz) of 
Wellman, Incorporated, Administrative Offices, Fort Mill, South 
Carolina working out of Fresh Meadow, New York and Commack, New York, 
respectively.
    Based on this finding, the Department is amending the certification 
to include employees of the Fort Mill, South Carolina location of the 
subject firm working out of Fresh Meadow, New York and Commack, New 
York.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Wellman, Incorporated, Administrative Offices, Fort Mill, 
South Carolina, who qualify as secondarily trade affected workers.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-61,347 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Wellman, Incorporated, Administrative Offices, 
Fort Mill, South Carolina, (TA-W-61,347), including employees of 
Wellman, Incorporated, Administrative Offices, Fort Mill, South 
Carolina, working out of Fresh Meadow, New York and Commack, New 
York (TA-W-61,347A), who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after April 11, 2006, through May 4, 2009, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative 
trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 
1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of January 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-2131 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Manish Sohani and Anis Virani v. Nizar Sunesara

Appellate case number: 01-16-00460-CV

Trial court case number: 1058441

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

On July 19, 2016, this Court granted the agreed motion by appellants, Manish 

Sohani and Anis Virani, and appellee, Nizar Sunesara, to abate this appeal indefinitely to 

permit the parties to pursue mediation pursuant to a Rule 11 agreement. This Court’s 

Order also stated that this appeal would be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when 

either party filed a motion to reinstate this appeal.

On January 17, 2017, the county clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record in this 

Court containing, among other things, a Rule 11 agreement, signed on October 27, 2016, 

in which the parties agreed to abate this appeal until January 15, 2017, and if no mediated 

settlement agreement had been entered by that date, then the plaintiffs-appellants may 

seek to reinstate this appeal. To date, neither party has filed any motion in this Court 

requesting reinstatement of this appeal or an update regarding the status of mediation.

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to REINSTATE this case on this 

Court’s active docket. Appellants’ brief is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days

from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 38.6(a)(1), (d). Appellee’s brief, if 

any, is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days from the filing of appellant’s brief. 

See id. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually 

Date: January 24, 2017
Exhibit 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF HUBCO, INC.:

Hudson United Bank, organized under the banking laws of the State of New Jersey.
Lafayette American Bank and Trust, organized under the banking laws of the State
  of Connecticut.
Bank of the Hudson, organized under the banking laws of the State of New York.
MSB Travel, Inc., organized under the New York Business Laws.

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF HUDSON UNITED BANK:

Hendrick Hudson Corp. of New Jersey, organized under the New Jersey Business 
  Corporation Act.
Lafayette Development Corp., organized under the New Jersey Business 
  Corporation Act.
HUB Financial Services, Inc., organized under the New Jersey Business 
  Corporation Act.
HUB Mortgage Investments, Inc., organized under the New Jersey Business 
  Corporation Act.
NJ Investments of Delaware, Inc., organized under Delaware Business Laws.

               SUBSIDIARIES OF LAFAYETTE AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST:

AMBA Realty Corporation, organized under the Connecticut Business Laws.
LAI Company, organized under the Connecticut Business Laws.
LAB Investment Corp. of Delaware, Inc., organized under Delaware Business Laws.

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE BANK OF THE HUDSON:

POSABK, Inc., organized under the New York Business Laws.
Plural Realty, Inc., organized under the New York Business Laws.
PSB Building Corp., organized under the New York Business Laws.
Hudson Trader Brokerage Services Inc., organized under the New York Business
  Laws.
BOTH Investments of Delaware, Inc., organized under Delaware Business Laws.
HomeNigeria

# Nigeria

203 items

        -    		POWER Project Pipeline	   
        -    Report  		2019 END Wildlife Trafficking Report	  November 7, 2019 
        -    Report  		Nigeria	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Nigeria	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Nigeria	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Nigeria	  April 22, 2019 
        -    Report  		Nigeria	  March 13, 2019 
        -    Report  		2018 END Wildlife Trafficking Report	  October 10, 2018 
        -    TIAS  		Nigeria (18-919.11) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters	  September 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Nigeria	  July 19, 2018 

previous page1…161718192021next page

Back to Top
#### § 560.403 Transshipment or transit through Iran.

The prohibitions in §§ 560.204, 560.206, and 560.208 apply to export, reexport or supply transactions which require a transshipment or transit of goods or technology through Iran to third countries.
#### § 4.7 Fees.

The Director may charge reasonable fees for any service provided by the Library under this part, in accordance with a schedule available at the Library upon request, which are designed to recover all or a portion of the cost to the Library of providing the service.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2769

To allow employees of the United States Government who have been furloughed, due to a lapse in appropriations, to volunteer to work to serve

the needs of the people of the United States, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 13, 1995

Mr. BARTON of Texas (for himself, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. WATTS

of Oklahoma, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. LAUGHLIN, and Mr.

STOCKMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to be substantially determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To allow employees of the United States Government who

have been furloughed, due to a lapse in appropriations,

to volunteer to work to serve the needs of the people

of the United States, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2769 IH

1 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF LIMITATION ON ACCEPTANCE OF

2 VOLUNTARY SERVICES OF EMPLOYEES OF

3 THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WHO

4 HAVE BEEN FURLOUGHED DUE TO A LAPSE

5 IN APPROPRIATIONS.

6 Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United

7 States Code, an officer or employee of the United States

8 Government, or of the District of Columbia government,

9 may accept the voluntary services of an employee of the

10 United States Government, or an employee of the District

11 of Columbia government, as the case may be, who has

12 been furloughed due to a lapse in appropriations.

Æ
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 20086 Summary Calendar

RODERICQUE THOMPSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
HOUSTON FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER; TWO UNKNOWN CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; UNKNOWN MEDICAL DOCTOR , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CV

- 3402

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Proceeding pro se , Rodericque Thompson, federal prisoner # 59846

- 019, challenges the dismissal of his Bivens action for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents , 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (action against federal actors) . This court reviews de novo a § 1915A dismissal, using the same standard applicable to dismissals

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 23, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-20086 Document: 00512977811 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2015No. 14

- 20086
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). E.g., Coleman v. Sweetin , 745 F.3d 756, 763

– 64 (5th Ci r. 2014). Thompson asserts he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies because he sought relief unavailable from the administrative process (monetary damages). To the contrary, a prisoner is required to exhaust administrative remedies even when seeking such damages. E.g., Wright v. Hollingsworth , 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001) ; see also, e.g. , Murrell v. Chandler , 109 F. App’x 700, 700

– 01 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)

. In the alternative, Thompson contends he was entitled to equitabl e tol ling of the administrative

- grievance process, either because of his later discovery of his claims or because of the lack of available relief

. Proper exhaustion includes compliance with the agency’s critical procedur al rules, including deadlines, Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90

- 91 (2006), and d istrict courts have no discretion to excuse a failure to exhaust , Gonzalez v. Seal , 702 F.3d 785, 788 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam)

. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-20086 Document: 00512977811 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2015