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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128891 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 128891 COA: 253401 Wayne CC: 03-010860-01

ARRON TERRELL SALTER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ap ril 26, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0919 I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 28, 2005

Clerk
#### Ernest ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. KK-66.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 23, 1979.

*675Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Margaret C. Good, Asst. Public Defender, and Kathleen P. Dekker, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Miguel A. Olivella, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Robinson seeks review of his conviction for aggravated battery contending he was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel without a voluntary, intelligent, and knowing waiver of this right. We agree and reverse.

Prior to trial, the public defender was appointed to represent Robinson. One week prior to trial, a hearing was held to relieve the public defender from representing Robinson because Robinson had expressed a desire to proceed as his own attorney. Although a defendant has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so, *Faretta v. California,*422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), when a defendant, prior to trial, requests permission to represent himself, an inquiry must be conducted by the court to determine whether the defendant is making an intelligent and voluntary decision and is knowingly waiving his right to counsel. *Ausby v. State,*358 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The trial court should also determine whether unusual circumstances exist which would preclude the defendant from representing himself. In this regard, the court should determine whether the accused, by reason of his age, mental derangement, lack of knowledge, or education, or inexperience in criminal proceedings would be deprived of a fair trial if allowed to conduct his own defense. *Cappetta v. State,*204 So.2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968).

The inquiry, sub judice, was totally inadequate to reflect a knowing and intelligent waiver by Robinson of his constitutional right to counsel. The record fails to establish that Robinson, in seeking self-representation, “[knew] what he [was] doing and that his choice [was] made with [his] eyes open.” *Faretta,*422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541. Accordingly, Robinson’s conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
§ 423.662 Prehearing and summary judgment. ( a ) *Prehearing.* The hearing officer may schedule a prehearing conference if he or she believes that a conference would more clearly define the issues.
( b ) *Summary judgment.* Either party to the hearing, may ask the hearing officer to rule on a motion for summary judgment.
[72 FR 68734, Dec. 5, 2007]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3433 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3433

  To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from authorizing payment under 
 defense contracts for restructuring costs of a merger or acquisition.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 1996

   Mr. Smith of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from authorizing payment under 
 defense contracts for restructuring costs of a merger or acquisition.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF COSTS UNDER 
              DEFENSE CONTRACTS FOR RESTRUCTURING COSTS OF A MERGER OR 
              ACQUISITION.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of Defense may not authorize 
payment of any restructuring costs associated with a merger or 
acquisition that are incurred by a contractor under contract with the 
Department of Defense.
    (b) Repeal.--Section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2821; 10 U.S.C. 
2324 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking out subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d); and
            (2) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), and (g) as 
        subsections (a), (b), and (c), respectively.
    (c) Applicability.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the prohibition 
in subsection (a) applies with respect to restructuring costs 
associated with a merger or acquisition that are incurred before, on, 
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (2) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect 
to restructuring costs associated with a merger or acquisition that 
were paid by the Secretary of Defense before the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases…Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană

# 											Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană									

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

May 31, 2024

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:

Deputy Secretary of State Kurt M. Campbell met on Tuesday, May 28, with NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană in Brussels at NATO Headquarters. Deputy Secretary Campbell and Deputy Secretary General Geoană discussed the United States’ and NATO’s enduring commitment to supporting Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s aggression; the impact of People’s Republic of China support to the Russian defense industrial base on Russia’s war against Ukraine; the growing relationship between Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and priority deliverables for the July 9-11 NATO Washington Summit, including concrete steps Allies will take to help Ukraine defend itself, operationalize NATO support, and progress Ukraine toward NATO membership.

Tags

BelgiumBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
### Geology of the southern part of the Lemhi Range, Idaho

By: Clyde Palhemus Ross

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1081F

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Van R. EDWARDS.

No. 80-K-2941.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re Van R. Edwards, applying for remedial writs and stay order. Parish of La-Salle. No. 22000.

Denied.
# C_2006074EN.01002701.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/27

---

Action brought on 30 December 2005 — Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha/OHIM

(Case T-462/05)

(2006/C 74/51)

Language of the case:English

Parties

Applicant: Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha (Aichi-Ken, Japan) [represented by: J. F. Wachinger, lawyer]

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 September 2005, in Case R 1157/2004-1 to be void and to allow the registration of the word mark application No. 003157492 ‘IFS’ for the goods ‘steering and power steering, both for vehicles and parts therefor, excluding independent front suspension’ in the international class 12, referring to the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 September 2005, in Case R 1157/2004-1 to be void and to allow the registration of the word mark application No. 003157492 ‘IFS’ for the goods ‘steering and power steering, both for vehicles and parts therefor, excluding independent front suspension’ in the international class 12, referring to the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks,

| — | or, in the alternative, declare the decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 September 2005, in Case R 1157/2004-1 to be void, to remand the case to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for reconsideration, and for the issuance of a new decision, |
| --- | --- |

—

or, in the alternative, declare the decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 September 2005, in Case R 1157/2004-1 to be void, to remand the case to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for reconsideration, and for the issuance of a new decision,

| — | impose the costs of the proceedings on the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

impose the costs of the proceedings on the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IFS’ for goods in class 12 — application No 3 157 492

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of all the designated goods

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 because of amongst others a wrongful definition of the relevant public and an erroneous assumption of descriptive meaning.

Pleas in law:

---
HomeAssisted Schools...Berlin, Germany: John F. Kennedy School: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Berlin, Germany: John F. Kennedy School: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 15, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +49-30-90299-5758 (high school) and +49-30-90299-5711 (elementary school) |  Regional Education Officer: Tim Stuart 
        -  E-mail: welcome@jfksberlin.org | Website: www.jfks.de 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly. 

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Berlin JFK 2024 Special Needs Profile Germany) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

The **John F. Kennedy School,**founded in 1960, is a bilingual, bicultural, German-American, college-preparatory public school. Students of both nationalities are taught together in the same classroom with the goal of developing respect, tolerance, and understanding for each other and for the partner culture. The school year consists of two semesters normally extending from the third week in August to early July.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

GermanyOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 23


Deloitte & Touche LLP
(logo)                        Two Prudential Plaza     Telephone
312-946-3000
                              180 North Stetson Avenue
     Facsimile:               312-946-2600
                              Chicago, Illinois  60601-6779




INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We  consent  to  the incorporation by reference  in  Registration
Statement No. 33-62635 of Norwest Financial, Inc. on Form S-3  of
our report dated January 14, 1998, appearing in the Annual Report
on  Form  10-K  of  Norwest Financial, Inc. for  the  year  ended
December 31, 1997.



\s\                           Deloitte & Touche

March 20, 1998
























Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu
International
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.668 Disqualification of hearing officer. ( a ) A hearing officer may not conduct a hearing in a case in which he or she is prejudiced or partial to any party or has any interest in the matter pending for decision.
( b ) A party to the hearing who objects to the designated hearing officer must notify that officer in writing at the earliest opportunity.
( c ) The hearing officer must consider the objections, and may, at his or her discretion, either proceed with the hearing or withdraw. ( 1 ) If the hearing officer withdraws, CMS designates another hearing officer to conduct the hearing.
( 2 ) If the hearing officer does not withdraw, the objecting party may, after the hearing, present objections and request that the officer's decision be revised or a new hearing be held before another hearing officer. The objections must be submitted in writing to CMS.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 338

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect against code grabbers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. PACKARD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect against

code grabbers.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Code Grabber Prohibi5 tion Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF CODE GRABBERS.

7 Section 2510(16) of title 18, United States Code, is

8 amended—

9 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

10 (D);
2

•HR 338 IH

1 (2) by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of subpara2 graph (E); and

3 (3) by adding after subparagraph (E) the fol4 lowing;

5 ‘‘(F) a coded signal sent by a motor vehicle

6 alarm system, unless the interception, access,

7 disclosure, or other conduct otherwise prohib8 ited by this chapter or chapter 121 of this title

9 is for a noncriminal and nontortious purpose;’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<CASH>                                           14365
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             867
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  7375
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     132592
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         107593
<ALLOWANCE>                                       3273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  271628
<DEPOSITS>                                      239724
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1692
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          7500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       22712
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  271628
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   9948
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 7040
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   558
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 18205
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                  23
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6511
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            11694
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 442
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   8501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   7657
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        7657
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5247
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.88
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.68
<LOANS-NON>                                        527
<LOANS-PAST>                                       441
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  1778
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   1822
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3077
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      438
<RECOVERIES>                                       634
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 3273
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2490
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            783 
        

</TABLE>
AMENDMENT TO
                                STOCK OPTION PLAN
                       SAFEGUARD HEALTH ENTERPRISES, INC.

                       (AS AMENDED THROUGH JUNE 30, 2003)

SafeGuard  Health  Enterprise, Inc., (the "Company") a corporation organized and
existing  under  the laws of the State of Delaware, hereby adopts this amendment
to  the Company's Stock Option Plan, (the "Plan") as stated below.  The Board of
Directors  of  the  Company  approved  the  following amendment to the Plan at a
meeting  held  on  May 1, 2003, and the stockholders of the Company approved the
amendment  to  the  Plan  at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on June 30,
2003,  as  is  required  by  the  Plan

Article  II,  Section  2.1  -  Shares  Subject  to the Plan, is therefore hereby
                               ----------------------------
amended  to  read  as  follows:

Section  2.1  -  Shares  Subject  to  the  Plan
------------     ------------------------------

          The  shares  of  stock  subject  to  Options  shall  be  shares of the
Company's authorized common stock ("Common Stock"). The aggregate number of such
shares,  which  may  be  issued  over  the  term  of  the Plan, shall not exceed
4,000,000.  The total number of shares issuable from time to time under the Plan
shall  be  subject  to  periodic adjustment in accordance with the provisions of
Section  2.3  below.

          Should  an Option expire or terminate for any reason prior to exercise
or  surrender  in  full,  the shares subject to the portion of the Option not so
exercised  or  surrendered shall be available for subsequent Option grants under
the  Plan.  Shares  subject  to  any  Option  or  portion thereof surrendered in
accordance with Section 7.10 of the Plan and all share issuances under the Plan,
whether  or not such shares are subsequently repurchased by the Company pursuant
to its repurchase rights under the Plan, shall reduce on a share-for-share basis
the  number  of  shares  of  Common Stock available for subsequent Option grants
under  this  Plan. In addition, should the option price of an outstanding Option
under the Plan be paid with shares of Common Stock, then the number of shares of
Common Stock subsequently available for issuance under the Plan shall be reduced
by  the gross number of shares for which the Option is exercised, and not by the
net  number  of  shares  of  Common  Stock  actually  issued  to  the  Optionee.

We hereby certify that the above amendment to the Plan were, as may be required,
duly adopted by the Board of Directors and the Stockholders of the Company as of
May  1,  2003,  and  June  30,  2003,  respectively.

Executed  on  the  30th  day  of  June  2003  at  Aliso  Viejo,  California.


By:  /s/  James  E.  Buncher              By:  /s/ Ronald  I.  Brendzel
   -----------------------------             -------------------------------
   JAMES  E.  BUNCHER                        RONALD  I.  BRENDZEL
   President and Chief Executive Officer     Senior Vice President and Secretary


<PAGE>
§ 423.1026 Disqualification of Administrative Law Judge. ( a ) An ALJ may not conduct a hearing in a case in which he or she is prejudiced or partial to the affected party or has any interest in the matter pending for decision.
( b ) A party that objects to the ALJ designated to conduct the hearing must give notice of its objections at the earliest opportunity.
( c ) The ALJ will consider the objections and decide whether to withdraw or proceed with the hearing. ( 1 ) If the ALJ withdraws, another ALJ will be designated to conduct the hearing.
( 2 ) If the ALJ does not withdraw, the objecting party may, after the hearing, present its objections to the Departmental Appeals Board as reasons for changing, modifying, or reversing the ALJ's decision or providing a new hearing before another ALJ.
#### § 435.221 [Reserved]