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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

November 23 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk November 23 , 2016

152889 (78)

BETTINA WINKLER, by her next friends

HELGA DAHM WINKLER and MARVIN

WINKLER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 152889

v COA: 323511

Oakland CC: 2014

- 141112

- CZ

MARIST FATHERS OF DETROIT, INC., d/b/a

NOTRE DAME PREPARATORY HIGH

SCHOOL AND MARIST ACADEMY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the joint motion of the parties to extend the time for

filing their supplemental briefs is GRANTED. The supplemental briefs will be accepted

as timely filed if submitted on or befo re January 31, 2017.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.686 Record of hearing. ( a ) A complete record of the proceedings at the hearing is made and transcribed and made available to all parties upon request.
( b ) The record may not be closed until a hearing decision has been issued.
HomeTrade Status Lists...4. Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity Agreement Relating to Supply Chain Resilience, done at San Francisco; November 14, 2023

# 									4. Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity Agreement Relating to Supply Chain Resilience, done at San Francisco; November 14, 2023							

Depositary – Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Entered into force February 24, 2024

The Agreement shall enter into force 30 days after the date on which at least five of the States listed in Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Agreement have deposited an instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval with the Depositary. For each State listed in paragraph 1 that submits its instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval with the Depositary after the date of the fifth deposit, the Agreement shall enter into force 30 days after the date on which that State deposits its instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval with the Depositary.
Download Status List						 [117 KB]

Tags

MultilateralTrade and InvestmentTreaties

Back to Top
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KRISLEE CARDINAL HALL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

APOLLO GROUP, INC.; THE

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-16916

D.C. No. 5:14-cv-01404-LHK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 14, 2016** 

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Krislee Cardinal Hall appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her diversity action alleging various claims in connection with her

enrollment in higher education degree programs. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

JUN 17 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Hall’s

requests for oral argument.
U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); see also

Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture

arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim[.]”). 

Accordingly, we do not consider whether the district court properly dismissed

Hall’s complaint.

We reject as without merit Hall’s contentions that the district court was

biased against her or engaged in judicial misconduct. See United States v.

Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that under both 28

U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455, the substantive standard for recusal is whether

“a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the

judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147

(9th Cir. 2010) (“[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by the court in its

judicial capacity will rarely support recusal.”).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-16916
Non-Employee Director Compensation Schedule



 EXHIBIT 10.36 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SCHEDULE 
 Overview 
 A summary of 2009 non-employee director compensation is provided below: 
  

					
	 Annual Board Retainer
	  	$	  60,000	 
		
	 Chairman’s Retainer
	  	$	100,000	(1)
		
	 Meeting Fees
	  	 
  
	No separate fees for board or
 committee meetings
	 
  

		
	 Committee Retainer
	  			
	 Audit
	  	$	  12,000	 
	 Compensation
	  	$	  10,000	 
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance
	  	$	  10,000	 
		
	 Committee Chair Retainer
	  			
	 Audit
	  	$	    7,500	 
	 Compensation
	  	$	    7,500	 
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance
	  	$	    7,500	 
		
	 Equity Awards
	  			
	 Stock Options
	  	$	  60,000	(2)
	 Restricted Stock Units
	  	$	  60,000	(3)

  

	(1)	The Chairman’s retainer includes, and is not in addition to, the standard board retainer. 

  

	(2)	Upon being elected or continuing as a director, each non-employee director will receive such number of restricted stock units as is determined by dividing $60,000 by the closing
price of our common stock on the grant date. 

  

	(3)	Upon being elected or continuing as a director, each non-employee director will receive a stock option having $60,000 in value. The number of shares for which the option may be
exercised will be determined by dividing $60,000 by a binomial valuation of an option of one share of our common stock on the grant date. 

 Vesting 
 Stock options and restricted stock units will vest 100% on the earlier of (i) the first anniversary of the grant date
or (ii) immediately prior to the first annual meeting of shareholders following the grant date. 
 Deferred Compensation Plan 

We have a non-employee director deferred compensation plan. This plan allows directors to defer all or a part of their cash retainers until after their service on the
board has ended. Funds in deferred accounts are invested in hypothetical shares of our common stock. 
 Restricted stock units are hypothetical shares of our
common stock that are converted into actual shares upon settlement. Under the deferred compensation plan, directors may defer receipt of shares issuable pursuant to the restricted stock units until after their service on the board has ended.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  S AUL G REGORIO M ARTINEZ , Petitioner, No. 04-72975

v. Agency No.



#  A070-217-803 M ICHAEL B. M UKASEY , Attorney General, ORDER

Respondent. 

# 

Filed November 7, 2008
Before: Harry Pregerson, John T. Noonan and Stephen S. Trott, Circuit Judges.

ORDER
The Opinion, Concurrence, and Dissent filed October 6, 2008, slip op. 14193, are withdrawn. It may not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit. A new Opinion will follow in due course.

15279PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
HomeFY 2023 International Affairs Budget

# FY 2023 International Affairs Budget

							Discover More Budget Releases							

## 						The FY 2023 Congressional Budget Justification describes the funding required for State and USAID to carry out our missions worldwide. 					

View the full fiscal year 2023 Congressional Budget Justification: FY 2023 Congressional Budget Justification [4 MB] | State and USAID Appendix 1 [7 MB] | State and USAID Appendix 2 [11 MB] | State and USAID Appendix 3 [1 MB] | Supplementary Tables – Foreign Operations [1 MB]

## 					Discover More				

### 									Publications								

          -  														FY 2023 Congressional Budget Justification - Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs														 
          -  														FY 2023 State and USAID Congressional Budget Justification - Appendix 1														 
          -  														FY 2023 State and USAID Congressional Budget Justification - Appendix 2														 
          -  														FY 2023 State and USAID Congressional Budget Justification - Appendix 3														 
          -  														FY 2023 State and USAID Congressional Budget Justification - Supplementary Tables - Foreign Operations														 

### 									Remarks and Releases								

          -  														The President’s Fiscal Year 2023 Budget																											 
          -  														U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development FY 2023 Budget Request 																											 
          -  														Briefing by State Department and USAID Officials on the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget														 

Back to Top
#### Albert R. STEWART and his wife, Alma L. Stewart, as Owners of Parcel 112.1, Appellants (Defendants), v. ALACHUA COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. X-260.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 8, 1975.

L. William Graham of Dell, Graham, Willcox, Barber, Rappenecker, Ryals & Henderson, Gainesville, for appellants.

Norm La Coe, Geoffrey B. Dobson and Winifred Sheridan Smallwood, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon considering the briefs, record, and oral argument, we find no reversible error.

In determination of just compensation to be awarded for business damages in an eminent domain proceeding, jury’s verdict must be within range of evidence adduced at trial, and be an amount not lower than lowest nor higher than highest figure supported by the evidence. *Sallas v. State Road Department of Florida,*220 So.2d 378 (Fla.App. 1st, 1969).

Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

McCORD, Acting C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
§ 424.37 Evidence of authority to sign on behalf of the beneficiary. ( a ) *Beneficiary incapable.* When a party specified in § 424.36(b) signs a claim or request for payment statement, he or she must also submit a brief statement that— ( 1 ) Describes his or her relationship to the beneficiary; and
( 2 ) Explains the circumstances that make it impractical for the beneficiary to sign the claim or statement.
( b ) *Beneficiary not present for services.* When a representative of the provider, nonparticipating hospital, or supplier signs a claim or request for payment statement under § 424.36(c), he or she must explain why it was not possible to obtain the beneficiary's signature. (For example: “Patient not physically present for test.”)
[53 FR 6640, Mar. 2, 1988; 53 FR 12945, Apr. 20, 1988]
HomeVietnam

# Vietnam

191 items

        -    TIAS  		Vietnam (10-1210) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Scientific and Technological Cooperation in Earth Sciences and Effective Management of Natural Resources in the Context of Climate Change	  December 10, 2010 
        -    TIAS  		Vietnam (09-731) – Agreement Concerning the Opening of a Vietnam Consulate General in Houston, Texas	  July 31, 2009 
        -    TIAS  		Vietnam (08-625.1) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters	  June 25, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		Vietnam (08-322) – Agreement on the Acceptance of the Return of Vietnamese Citizens	  March 22, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		Vietnam (07-715) – Agreement on Maritime Transport	  July 15, 2007 
        -    TIAS  		Vietnam (06-531.8) – Agreement on Export Certificates for Poultry and Meat Products	  May 31, 2006 
        -    TIAS  		Vietnam (06-531.7) – Agreement on Shelf Life of Certain Food and Food Additives	  May 31, 2006 
        -    TIAS  		Vietnam (06-531.6) – Agreement on Export Duties on Ferrous and Nonferrous Scrap Metal	  May 31, 2006 
        -    TIAS  		Vietnam (06-531.5) – Agreement on Elimination of Prohibited Subsidies and Related Matters	  May 31, 2006 
        -    TIAS  		Vietnam (06-531.4) – Agreement Regarding Supply of Energy Services under Contract	  May 31, 2006 

previous page1…151617181920next page

Back to Top
#### Elise Brown Catchings ROUPRICH v. Stanley Joseph ROUPRICH.

No. 81-C-0181.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1981.

Granted. Judgment of the court of appeal is reversed. Case remanded to trial court for further evidence on the issue of the wife’s freedom from fault.

DIXON, C. J.,

concurs in the reversal and remand, but believes that this case should be reversed and the judgment of the trial court reinstated. When the plaintiff proves her case of abandonment, as I believe she did, the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the defendant, who, in this case, chose to put on no evidence.
No. 99-8952.

#### Stradwick *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Silicon
Valley Research, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended March 31, 1999 and to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
33-97988 and 333-36025) and in the Prospectus constituting part of the
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-26599, 333-36023 and 333-46997) of
Silicon Valley Research, Inc. of our report dated June 10, 1999.


/s/ MOSS ADAMS LLP

San Francisco, California
July 12, 1999
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.40 Basis and scope. ( a ) This subpart sets forth State plan requirements and exceptions that pertain to the following administrative requirements and provisions of the Act: ( 1 ) Statewideness—section 1902(a)(1);
( 2 ) Proper and efficient administration—section 1902(a)(4);
( 3 ) Comparability of services—section 1902(a)(10) (B)-(E);
( 4 ) Payment for services furnished outside the State—section 1902(a)(16);
( 5 ) Free choice of providers—section 1902(a)(23);
( 6 ) Special waiver provisions applicable to American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands—section 1902(j); and
( 7 ) Exceptions to, and waiver of, State plan requirements—sections 1915 (a)-(c) and 1916 (a)(3) and (b)(3).
( b ) Other applicable regulations include the following: ( 1 ) Section 430.25 Waivers of State plan requirements.
( 2 ) Section 440.250 Limits on comparability of services.
#### § 419.91 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Rural emergency hospital or REH* means an entity as defined in § 485.502 of this chapter.

*Rural emergency hospital (REH) services* means all covered outpatient department (OPD) services, as defined in section 1833(t)(1)(B) of the Act, excluding services described in section 1833(t)(1)(B)(ii), furnished by an REH that would be paid under the outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS) when provided in a hospital paid under the OPPS for outpatient services, provided that such services are furnished consistent with the conditions of participation at §§ 485.510 through 485.544 of this chapter.
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-23950, 33-70284, 333-03081, 333-03083, and 333-91418 on Form S-8 of our
report relating to the financial statements of Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc.
dated December 13, 2005 incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc. for the year ended October 30, 2005.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Columbus, Ohio
January 17, 2006
Costello Insurance Associates, Inc.

P. O. BOX 28280 / 428 E. SOUTHERN AVENUE / TEMPE, AZ. 85285-8280

TEL: 480-968-7746 / 800-528-6483 / FAX: 480-967-3828 / insure@aviationi.com

March 20, 2014

American Live Wire, LLC

Lamont Street #1

San Diego CA 92109

RE: Confirmation of Coverage: Effective March 18, 2014 at 12:01 a.m. to April 17, 2014 at 12:01 a.m.

 (Annual policy will be issued soon after receipt of completed application)

Dear Mr. Crooks:

Thank you for allowing us to place your aircraft insurance. Coverage was placed with U S Specialty Insurance 

Co. per the above effective date as follows:

AIRCRAFT: 2013 DJI PHANTOM UAV N# None

HULL COVERAGE: None – Liability Only.

LIMITS OF LIABILITY: $500,000 combined single limit of bodily injury and property damage 

per occurrence.

APPROVED PURPOSE: Pleasure and Business plus Aerial Photography/Mapping for Hire

APPROVED PILOTS: Any pilot approved by the Named Insured or their designee

ANNUAL PREMIUM: $595.00

Should you have any questions or other aviation insurance needs, please do not hesitate to call. It is a pleasure 

serving you.

Best Regards,

This insurance is subject to the terms, conditions, & limitations 

of the policy (ies) in current use by the insuring companies.

Pat Costello

U
§ 435.222 Optional eligibility for reasonable classifications of individuals under age 21 with income below a MAGI-equivalent standard in specified eligibility categories. ( a ) *Basis.* This section implements sections 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(I) and (IV) of the Act for optional eligibility of individuals under age 21.
( b ) *Eligibility.* The agency may provide Medicaid to all—or to one or more reasonable classifications, as defined in the State plan, of—individuals under age 21 (or, at State option, under age 20, 19 or 18) who have household income at or below the income standard established by the agency in its State plan in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Income standard.* The income standard established under this section may not exceed the higher of the State's AFDC payment standard in effect as of July 16, 1996, or the State's highest effective income level, if any, for such individuals under the Medicaid State plan or a demonstration program under section 1115 of the Act as of March 23, 2010, or December 31, 2013, if higher, converted to a MAGI-equivalent standard in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary under section 1902(e)(14)(A) and (E) of the Act.
[81 FR 86453, Nov. 30, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 22866, Apr. 2, 2024]
HomeDiplomatic Security Memorial...Ibrahima Lansana Soumah

# 									Ibrahima Lansana Soumah							

DS Memorial

March 23, 2013

		Local Law Enforcement		

**Local Law Enforcement****Year of Death: 2013**

Commander Ibrahima Lansana Soumah, Gendarmerie Squadron in N’Zerekore, Guinea, was injured in a vehicle accident while on protective escort, March 19, 2013, and died shortly after being medically evacuated to Morocco. He was escorting the U.S. ambassador on a trip to the Forest Region of Guinea.

**Guinea Police image**

Tags

DS Local Law EnforcementGuinea

Back to Top
#### GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILWAY CO. v. THE UNITED STATES.

[Not reported in C. Cls. R.; 246 U. S., 652.]

*Per curiam.*

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Sec. 242 Judicial Code, March 26, 1918.
HomeDSS Press Releases...Former Teacher Pleads Guilty to Sexually Exploiting Children in Laos

# 									Former Teacher Pleads Guilty to Sexually Exploiting Children in Laos							

DSS Releases

December 20, 2023

For Immediate Release – December 20, 2023

Click here to read more about this

 

Tags

Child ProtectionDSS ReleasesHuman TraffickingHuman TraffickingLaosMassachusetts

Back to Top
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50667

Texas Democratic Party; Democratic Senatorial 

Campaign Committee; Democratic Congressional 

Campaign Committee, 

Plaintiffs—Appellees,

versus

Ruth R. Hughs, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:20-CV-8

Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

Plaintiffs sued the Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly imposing a voter-registration requirement that 

violates federal law. The Secretary of State moved to dismiss under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). The Secretary argued, inter alia, 

that she enjoys sovereign immunity from suit because she has no connection 

to the enforcement of the allegedly unlawful registration requirement. See Ex 

parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908). The district court denied her motion. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50667 Document: 00515558494 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
No. 20-50667

2

The Secretary noticed an interlocutory appeal. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 

U.S. 511, 526–27 (1985). Plaintiffs moved our court for summary affirmance 

or dismissal of the Secretary’s appeal as frivolous.

The appeal is far from frivolous. It presents an important question that 

has not been resolved by our court: whether and to what extent Ex parte 

Young’s exception to sovereign immunity permits plaintiffs to sue the 

Secretary in an as-applied challenge to a law enforced by local officials. We 

did not resolve that question in OCA-Greater Hous. v. Texas, 867 F.3d 604 

(5th Cir. 2017). That case involved a facial challenge under the Voting Rights 

Act. See id. at 613; see also id. at 614 (holding “[s]overeign immunity has no 

role to play here” because the Voting Rights Act validly abrogated it). Nor 

did we resolve it in Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 961 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 

2020). To the contrary, that case recognized that “[t]he precise scope of [Ex 

parte Young’s] ‘some connection’ requirement is still unsettled.” Id. at 400; 

see also id. at 400 n.21 (“Our decisions are not a model of clarity on what 

‘constitutes a sufficient connection to enforcement.’” (quoting City of Austin 

v. Paxton, 943 F.3d 993, 999 (5th Cir. 2019))).

Plaintiffs also rely on our decision last week in Lewis v. Hughs, 20-

50654 (Sept. 4, 2020). In that related case, we granted the plaintiffs’ motion 

for summary affirmance of the Secretary’s interlocutory appeal. But Lewis is 

now pending before our court for en banc reconsideration. We refuse to 

prejudge the outcome of that reconsideration. The openness of the question 

alone is sufficient reason to deny plaintiffs’ requested relief.

The motion for summary affirmance is DENIED.

The motion to dismiss the Secretary’s appeal as frivolous is 

DENIED.

Judge Higginbotham would grant the motion for summary affirmance.

Case: 20-50667 Document: 00515558494 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
# Trinidad and Tobago

83 items

        -    Report  		Trinidad and Tobago	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Trinidad and Tobago	  April 24, 2019 
        -    Report  		Trinidad and Tobago	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		Caribbean Basin Security Initiative: Trinidad and Tobago	   
        -    		Caribbean Basin Security Initiative	   
        -    Report  		Trinidad and Tobago	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Trinidad and Tobago	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Trinidad and Tobago	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Trinidad and Tobago	  April 20, 2018 
        -    TIAS  		Trinidad and Tobago (17-1229) – Extensions to Defense Status of Forces Agreement	  December 29, 2017 

previous page1…56789next page

Back to Top