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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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 30, 2020

t0622

Order 

Clerk

June 30, 2020

160799 & (59)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160799

COA: 345351

Saginaw CC: 17-043815-FC

EDGAR DEANGELO HOSKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file supplement is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2019 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.
HomeSerbia

# Serbia

125 items

        -    TIAS  		Serbia (15-805) – Transportation Air Transport Agreement	  August 5, 2015 
        -    TIAS  		Serbia and Montenegro (10-928) – Agreement on the Status of the International School in Belgrade	  September 28, 2010 
        -    TIAS  		Serbia and Montenegro (10-610.1) – Agreement on Employment of Dependents of Members of Diplomatic Missions and Consular Posts	  June 10, 2010 
        -    TIAS  		Serbia (09-615) – Agreement on Defense Cooperation	  June 15, 2009 
        -    TIAS  		Yugoslavia (01-511) – Foreign Assistance	  May 11, 2001 

previous page1…111213

Back to Top
#### Ausben Darel DOWD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1077.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 28, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
23.1
 
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
 PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration
Statements of PAB Bankshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-74819, 333-89527,
333-107039 and 333-137316) and Form S-3D (33-74080) of our reports, dated
February 18, 2008 of our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of PAB Bankshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2007.
 
 
 /s/
      Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC
 
 
 Albany,
Georgia
 March 14,
2008
#### Margaret C. PECKHAM, Appellant, v. GOOD LIFE ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Philip E. Fayette, Donald L. Bacon and Ronald E. Kmitta, Appellees.

No. 78-1138.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 1, 1978.

Robert P. Rosin of Rosin, Abel, Band, Rosin & Brown, Sarasota, for appellant.

Joseph L. Cardozo of Jones & Cardozo, Sarasota, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The final order dismissing with prejudice appellant’s complaint and appealed herein is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. *See Havatampa Corp. v. Walton Drug Co., Inc.,*Fla. 2d DCA 1978, 354 So.2d 1235.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
comments 

Hamilton, Cary 

to: 

Jack Faulk 

01/28/2010 05:10 PM 

Show Details 

Good Evening Mr. Faulk,

It was great to have met you in Dallas and put a face with all the emails.

I just wanted to convey the same message that I expressed to Mr. Page and Mr. Keily over 

the phone this week. Right now the state of NM has confirmed just over 5,000 miles of 

ditch, canals and laterals. After talking to WRRI (Water Resources and Research Institute) 

in NM the figure is going to be much greater. A conservative estimate may be between 

15,000 to 30,000 miles of ditch, canals and laterals. We will have a more accurate 

number by next Friday. We are extracting information from USDA data for NM via arc 

view and satellite imagery to add up the total number of miles of water ways in NM. We 

would fill more comfortable with a trigger being around 200 to 300 linear miles instead of 

the 50 linear miles.

Thank you for your time,

Cary C.S. Hamilton

Registration Program Manager

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

Agricultural & Environmental Services

Pesticide Compliance Section

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

chamilton@nmda.nmsu.edu

Office 575-646-7049

Cell 575-636-4514

Fax 575-646-5977

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jfaulk\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web2790.htm 5/11/2010
EXHIBIT 21



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                             AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1995


                                                                     PERCENTAGE
                                                                     OF VOTING
                                          JURISDICTION               SECURITIES
NAME                                     OF ORGANIZATION               OWNED
----                                     ---------------               -----
INTRUST Bank, National Association        National Bank                 100%

Will Rogers Bank                          Oklahoma                      100%

The First Bank                            Oklahoma                      100%

First Moore Insurance Agency, Inc.        Oklahoma                      100%


Note: As of February 11, 1995,  INTRUST Bank, El Dorado,  National  Association,
INTRUST Bank,  Haysville,  National  Association,  INTRUST Bank, Johnson County,
National  Association  and  INTRUST  Bank,  Valley  Center no longer  operate as
separate subsidiaries of the Company,  having merged into INTRUST Bank, National
Association.
699 A.2d 728

#### Gloria BEARD and John Beard, h/w, Petitioner, v. RITE-AID OF PA, INC., Respondent.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 16, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 1997, it is ordered that Petitioner’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED; the order of the Superior Court affirming the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County transferring venue from Philadelphia County to Delaware County is REVERSED; and this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for further proceed*565ings consistent with this court’s opinion in *Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminators, Inc.,*No. 56 E.D. Appeal Docket 1996, and *Forman v. Rossman,*et al., No. 57 E.D. Appeal Docket 1996, — pa.-, 701 A.2d 156 (1997).
§ 405.440 Emergency and urgent care services. ( a ) A physician or practitioner who has opted-out of Medicare under this subpart need not enter into a private contract to furnish emergency care services or urgent care services to a Medicare beneficiary. Accordingly, a physician or practitioner will not be determined to have failed to maintain opt-out if he or she furnishes emergency care services or urgent care services to a Medicare beneficiary with whom the physician or practitioner has not previously entered into a private contract, provided the physician or practitioner complies with the billing requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) When a physician or practitioner who has not been excluded under sections 1128, 1156, or 1892 of the Social Security Act furnishes emergency care services or urgent care services to a Medicare beneficiary with whom the physician or practitioner has not previously entered into a private contract, he or she: ( 1 ) Must submit a claim to Medicare in accordance with both 42 CFR part 424 and Medicare instructions (including but not limited to complying with proper coding of emergency or urgent care services furnished by physicians and practitioners who have opted-out of Medicare).
( 2 ) May collect no more than— ( i ) The Medicare limiting charge, in the case of a physician; or
( ii ) The deductible and coinsurance, in the case of a practitioner.
( c ) Emergency care services or urgent care services furnished to a Medicare beneficiary with whom the physician or practitioner has previously entered into a private contract (that is, entered into before the onset of the emergency medical condition or urgent medical condition), are furnished under the terms of the private contract.
( d ) Medicare may make payment for emergency care services or urgent care services furnished by a physician or practitioner who has properly opted-out when the services are furnished and the claim for services is made in accordance with this section. A physician or practitioner who has been excluded must comply with the regulations at § 1001.1901 (Scope and effect of exclusion) of this title when he or she furnishes emergency services to beneficiaries and may not bill and be paid for urgent care services.
# C_2005330EN.01000501.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 27 October 2005

in Case C-166/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Protection of wild birds and their habitats - Special protection areas - Messolongi Lagoon)

(2005/C 330/09)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-166/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Patakia and M. van Beek) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 2 April 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, P. Kūris (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary for establishing and implementing a cohesive, specific and comprehensive legal regime capable of ensuring sustainable management and effective protection of the special protection area of the Messalongi Lagoon, having regard to the conservation objectives laid down by Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary for establishing and implementing a cohesive, specific and comprehensive legal regime capable of ensuring sustainable management and effective protection of the special protection area of the Messalongi Lagoon, having regard to the conservation objectives laid down by Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004

1

---
40862.

#### SOUTHERN HOME CONTRACTORS, INC. et al. v. ROYAL et al.

Frankum, Judge.

1. The petition, as finally amended, purports to set forth a cause of action on open account against “Southern Home Contractors, Inc.,” “Home Finance Company,” and “R. R. McLarty.” However, attached to the petition is a bill of particulars in the form of several invoices, each of which shows that the materials alleged to have been purchased by the defendants named in the petition were in fact “Sold to Southern Home Contractors, Conyers, Ga.,” and delivered to “same.” When considered on general demurrer and construed most strongly against the plaintiff, the amended petition thus fails to show that the materials were sold to or delivered to and received by any of the defendants named therein, and no liability on the part of any of the defendants named is shown. *Williams v. Appliances, Inc.,*91 Ga. App. 608 (4) (86 SE2d 632).

2. Whether or not the second amendment, which struck from the petition the name of “Southern Home Contractors of Alabama, Inc.” as defendant and added in lieu thereof the name of “Southern Home Contractors, Inc.,” was subject to the demurrer thereto on the ground that it attempted to substitute one party defendant for another party defendant is not presented- since the subsequent amendment to the petition alleges that the use of “Southern Home Contractors of Alabama, Inc.” in the place of “Southern Home Contractors, *862Inc.” in the original petition was a misnomer. And the sufficiency of this allegation is not drawn in question by demurrer.

Decided January 5, 1965.

*Thurmond, Hester, Jolles & McElmurray, Isaac S. Jolles,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Hull, Willingham, Towill & Norman, A. Rowland L>ye,*contra.

3. The grounds of demurrer to the allegations of the amended petition respecting the interlocking corporate connection of the defendant corporations, the interest therein of the individual defendant named in the petition, and the unjust enrichment of the second corporate defendant and of the individual defendant because of the failure of the first corporate defendant to pay the indebtedness allegedly sued on should have been sustained, inasmuch as these allegations were vague and indefinite and were conclusions of ■ the pleader unsupported by any facts alleged.

4. The court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the amended petition and all of the grounds of special demurrer filed to the last amendment thereto.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and, Pannell, J., concur.*
# C_2005156EN.01000301.xml

| 28.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3740 — Barclays Bank/Föreningssparbanken/JV)

(2005/C 156/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 2 June 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3740. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3740. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
No. 99-8878.

#### Munoz-Amado, aka Munoz *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order entered March 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00338-CV

FSC ENTERPRISES, LLC, Appellant

V.

DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. TX-11-40912

ORDER

Before the Court is the March 13, 2013 motion of Heidi Darst, Official Court Reporter 

for the Civil District Tax Court of Dallas County, Texas, for an extension of time to file the 

reporter’s record. We GRANT the motion. The reporter’s record shall be filed on or before 

March 28, 2013.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
###### Editorial Note on Part 414

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

#### § 414.1220 Reporting mechanisms for the value-based payment modifier.

Solo practitioners and groups subject to the value-based payment modifier (or individual eligible professionals within such groups) may submit data on quality measures as specified under the Physician Quality Reporting System using the reporting mechanisms for which they are eligible.

[78 FR 74820, Dec. 10, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 68006, Nov. 13, 2014]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDynamic Analysis of Spur Gear Transmissions (DANST). PC Version 3.00 User ManualDANST is a FORTRAN computer program for static and dynamic analysis of spur gear systems. The program can be used for parametric studies to predict the static transmission error, dynamic load, tooth bending stress and other properties of spur gears as they are influenced by operating speed, torque, stiffness, damping, inertia, and tooth profile. DANST performs geometric modeling and dynamic analysis for low- or high-contact-ratio spur gears. DANST can simulate gear systems with contact ratios ranging from one to three. It was designed to be easy to use and it is extensively documented in several previous reports and by comments in the source code. This report describes installing and using a new PC version of DANST, covers input data requirements and presents examples.Document ID19970003836Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsOswald, Fred B.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Lin, Hsiang Hsi*(Memphis Univ. Memphis, TN United States)*Delgado, Irebert R.*(Army Research Lab. Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1996Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberAD-A313207NAS 1.15:107291NASA-TM-107291E-10367ARL-TR-1189Accession Number97N12460Funding Number(s)PROJECT: DA Proj. 1L1-62211-A-47APROJECT: RTOP 505-62-36Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970003836.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
# C_2005182EN.01001802.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/18

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 28 February 2005

in Case C-260/02: P Michael Becker v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeal - Officials - Invalidity pension - Application to begin the invalidity procedure during a period of leave on personal grounds - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2005/C 182/34)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-260/02 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice lodged at the Court on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker, official at the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, resident in Luxembourg (Luxembourg) (lawyer: E. Fricke), the other party to the proceedings being the Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: initially P. Giusta and B. Schäfer, then J.-M. Stenier and M. Bavendamm) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J. Makarczyk, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 28 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

Michael Becker

the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Becker is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Becker is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.

1

---
§ 800.105 Rules of construction and interpretation. ( a ) The examples included in this part are provided for informational purposes and should not be construed to alter the meaning of the text of the regulations in this part.
( b ) As used in this part, the term “including” means “including but not limited to.”
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40581

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONALD WAYNE NANTZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(USDC No. 1:91-CR-56)

- - - - - - - - - -

July 2, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Wayne Nantz, federal prisoner #03324-078, appeals from

the district court’s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that the district

court abused its discretion by “resentencing” him to the high end

of the amended guideline range and that he had a right to be

present and to the preparation of an updated presentence report at

his “resentencing.” We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Nantz’s argument that the district court erred
2

by determining that 50 pounds of ephedrine would produce thirty

pounds of pure methamphetamine is not cognizable in a § 3582

proceeding. See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.

1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Nantz’s motion to remand jurisdiction to the district court is

DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.382 CMS' right to rescind advisory opinions. ( a ) ( 1 ) Any advice CMS gives in an advisory opinion does not prejudice its right to reconsider the questions involved in the opinion, and CMS may rescind or revoke the opinion if it determines that there is good cause to rescind or revoke the opinion.
( 2 ) Good cause shall exist where— ( i ) There is a material change in the law that affects the conclusions reached in an opinion; or
( ii ) A party that has received a negative advisory opinion seeks reconsideration based on new facts or law.
( b ) CMS provides advance notice to the requestor and to the public of its decision to rescind or revoke the opinion so that the requestor and other parties may discontinue any course of action they have taken in accordance with, or in good faith reliance on, the advisory opinion.
( c ) CMS does not proceed against the requestor with respect to any action the requestor and the involved parties have taken in good faith reliance upon CMS' advice under this part, provided— ( 1 ) The requestor presented to CMS a full, complete and accurate description of all the relevant facts; and
( 2 ) The parties promptly discontinue the action upon receiving notice that CMS had rescinded or revoked its approval, or discontinue the action within a reasonable “wind down” period, as determined by CMS.
[84 FR 63193, Nov. 15, 2019]