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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132208 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132208 COA: 272189 Calhoun CC: 2005-000847-FH GARY EUGENE DOUGLAS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 17, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2318 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2318

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the deduction for 
State and local income and property taxes under the alternative minimum 
                                  tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2007

  Mr. Andrews (for himself and Mr. LoBiondo) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the deduction for 
State and local income and property taxes under the alternative minimum 
                                  tax.

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

SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL INCOME AND PROPERTY TAXES 
              ALLOWED UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 56(b)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general limitation on 
deductions) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i) and 
by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following new clauses:
                            ``(ii) for any foreign real property taxes 
                        described in paragraph (1) of section 164(a), 
                        or
                            ``(iii) for so much of paragraph (3) of 
                        section 164(a) as relates to foreign income, 
                        war profits, and excess profits taxes.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.21 Requirements for receiving a filing date.

(a) The Office will grant a filing date to an application under section 1 or section 44 of the Act that is filed through TEAS, is written in the English language, and contains all of the following:

(1) The name, address, and email address of each applicant;

(2) If the applicant is represented by a practitioner qualified under § 11.14 of this chapter, the practitioner's name, postal address, and email address;

(3) A clear drawing of the mark;

(4) A listing of the goods or services; and

(5) The filing fee required under § 2.6 for at least one class of goods or services.

(b) If the applicant does not satisfy all the elements required in paragraph (a) of this section, the Office will deny a filing date to the application unless the applicant meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.

(c) If the applicant is a national of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to file through TEAS and provide an email address do not apply.

[84 FR 37093, July 31, 2019, as amended at 84 FR 68046, Dec. 13, 2019]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
#### Edward McCann, Respondent, *v.*Anna H. Gerding, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of Special Term.

M. C. Palmer (Benjamin Fagan, of counsel), for appellant.

Jos. Steinert, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Order appealed from affirmed, with costs upon opinion of Special Term justice.

Present : Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and Schughman, J.

Order affirmed, with costs.
#### § 15.111 Notice.

The agency shall make available to employees, applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons such information regarding the provisions of this regulation and its applicability to the programs or activities conducted by the agency, and make such information available to them in such manner as the head of the agency finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by section 504 and this regulation.
§ 17.1215 Periods of emergent suicide care. ( a ) Unless extended under paragraph (b) of this section, emergent suicide care will be provided to an individual eligible under § 17.1210 from the date acute suicidal crisis is determined to exist: ( 1 ) Through inpatient care or crisis residential care, as long as the care continues to be clinically necessary, but not to exceed 30 calendar days; or
( 2 ) If care under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is unavailable, or if such care is not clinically appropriate, through outpatient care, as long as the care continues to be clinically necessary, but not to exceed 90 calendar days.
( b ) VA may extend a period under paragraph (a) of this section if such period is ending and VA determines that an individual continues to require care to address the effects of the acute suicidal crisis.
§ 14.632 Standards of conduct for persons providing representation before the Department ( a ) ( 1 ) All persons acting on behalf of a claimant shall faithfully execute their duties as individuals providing representation on a particular claim under § 14.630, representatives, agents, or attorneys.
( 2 ) All individuals providing representation are required to be truthful in their dealings with claimants and VA.
( b ) An individual providing representation on a particular claim under § 14.630, representative, agent, or attorney shall: ( 1 ) Provide claimants with competent representation before VA. Competent representation requires the knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation necessary for the representation. This includes understanding the issues of fact and law relevant to the claim as well as the applicable provisions of title 38, United States Code, and title 38, Code of Federal Regulations;
( 2 ) Act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing claimants. This includes responding promptly to VA requests for information or assisting a claimant in responding promptly to VA requests for information.
( c ) An individual providing representation on a particular claim under § 14.630, representative, agent, or attorney shall not: ( 1 ) Violate the standards of conduct as described in this section;
( 2 ) Circumvent a rule of conduct through the actions of another;
( 3 ) Engage in conduct involving fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or dishonesty;
( 4 ) Violate any of the provisions of title 38, United States Code, or title 38, Code of Federal Regulations;
( 5 ) Enter into an agreement for, charge, solicit, or receive a fee that is clearly unreasonable or otherwise prohibited by law or regulation;
( 6 ) Solicit, receive, or enter into agreements for gifts related to services for which a fee could not lawfully be charged;
( 7 ) Delay, without good cause, the processing of a claim at any stage of the administrative process;
( 8 ) Mislead, threaten, coerce, or deceive a claimant regarding benefits or other rights under programs administered by VA;
( 9 ) Engage in, or counsel or advise a claimant to engage in acts or behavior prejudicial to the fair and orderly conduct of administrative proceedings before VA;
( 10 ) Disclose, without the claimant's authorization, any information provided by VA for purposes of representation; or
( 11 ) Engage in any other unlawful or unethical conduct.
( d ) In addition to complying with standards of conduct for practice before VA in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, an attorney shall not, in providing representation to a claimant before VA, engage in behavior or activities prohibited by the rules of professional conduct of any jurisdiction in which the attorney is licensed to practice law.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5902, 5904)
[73 FR 29873, May 22, 2008, as amended at 84 FR 174, Jan. 18, 2019]
#### Land Improvement Mortgage Service Co. v. Norristown Federal Savings & Loan Association

*C. Edmund Wells,*for plaintiff.

*Francis T. Dennis,*for defendant.

October 19, 1955.

Forrest, J.,

In this action by an owner-contractor against its construction loan mortgagee to recover loss of profits allegedly sustained as a result of the admitted failure of the mortgagee to complete payments under the loan agreement, where there was conflicting evidence as to whether taking into consideration the stage of the work and the alleged defects therein, the refusal to make further payments was warranted or not, after disagreement of the jury, defendant has moved for judgment on the record. The authorization cited for this motion is the Act of April 20, 1911, P. L. 70, sec. 1, 12 PS §684. This provides, inter alia:

> “Whenever upon the trial of any issue a point requesting binding instructions has been reserved or declined, and the jury have disagreed, the party present*377ing the point may . . . move the court . . . for judgment in his favor upon the whole record; whereupon it shall be the duty of the court, unless it shall be of the opinion that the case should be retried ... to enter such judgment, if any, as under the law should have been entered upon that evidence at the time of trial.

Defendant’s motion must be overruled for the reason that no point for binding instructions was presented. The right to move for judgment on the whole record after disagreement of the jury is foreign to the common law, and the statute which specified the filing of a request for binding instructions as a prerequisite to the motion must be complied with. In Lipsky v. Stolzer, 236 Pa. 151, 153 (1912), the leading case construing the Act of 1911, supra, the Supreme Court stated: “It should appear that binding instructions had been reserved or declined. . . . Unless these facts are found to exist, the statute does not empower the trial court to enter a judgment. . . .”

The court has never deviated from its position but has reaffirmed the same by implication in numerous cases. See Wright v. Bristol Patent Leather Co., 257 Pa. 552, 554 (1917), and other cases cited in GoodrichAmram, Standard Pennsylvania Practice, vol. 6, page 415, and in 31 A. L. R. 2d 902, including Grande v. Wooleyhan Transport Co., 353 Pa. 535 (1946). Defendant, nevertheless, cites the Grande case, supra, in support of its proposition. There it was said, page 536: “The entry of judgment for defendant was not proper unless the testimony disclosed a case in which binding instructions for the defendant would have been proper at the trial.” However, the court in that case neither expressly nor by implication stated that the point for binding instructions was not an indispensable prerequisite to the invocation of the act. We do not think it was the intention of the Supreme Court *378in the Grande case, supra, to overrule the long line of cases preceding it.

And now, October 19, 1955, defendant’s motion for judgment upon the whole record is overruled. An exception is granted to defendant.
<PAGE>





                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


       Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Richard E. Staedtler, Chief Executive Officer of Castle Energy
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

       a)     The Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the year ended September
              30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
              Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

       b)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.

                  Dated:   December 1, 2005             /S/ RICHARD E. STAEDTLER
                           ----------------             ------------------------
                                                        Richard E. Staedtler
                                                        Chief Executive Officer

       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Castle Energy Corporation and will be retained by Castle Energy
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
30 September 2013

Richard Payton

8P

- AR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII

1595 Wynkoop Street

Denver, CO 80202

- 1129

Dear Richard :

Enclosed is the Addendum for the “Technical Support Document for the April 3 , 2009 Pagosa Springs

Exceptional Event” submitted to the EPA on June 30, 2012. This addendum addresses additional support

regarding local sources and controls outlined in the letter sent by EPA Region 8 on April 2, 2013. This letter

states that the Exceptional Event documentation submitted by APCD did not “ sufficiently investigate whether

local sources of windblown dust may have contributed to the exceedances .” Since receiving the EPA letter, the

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (Division) conducted a thoroug h investigation, including EPA’s

suggestions, of local sources of windblown dust and relevant reasonable controls in place at the time of the April

3 , 2009 Exceptional Event. These sources include the nine acre park along South 5 th Street, the lots on the

southeast corners of U.S. Highway 160 and Main Street/Lewis Street, and the expansion of the Springs Resort and

Spa . This addendum documents the results of this investigation.

This addendum, the original report, and the analysis and data contained within it, clearly shows that this

exceptional event passed the required tests under 40 CFR 50.14 (3)(iv).

We respectfully request a review of this addendum and concurrence by EPA on the April 3 , 20 09 natural high

wind/blowing dust event in Pagosa Springs.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gordon E. Pierce

Program Manager

Technical Services Program

Air Pollution Control Division

cc. D ei rdre Rothery, EPA

Kyle Olson, EPA

Lisa Devore , APCD

Kaitlin Stabrava, APCD

Terry Furuli, APCD
#### George B. Walling *v.*Edward Robertine

Maltbie, C. J., Brown, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson, Js.

Argued May 7

decided June 8, 1948

*660
      *Donald H. McGannon,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Fred L. Griffin,*for the appellee (defendant).

*Sidney Vogel,*amicus curiae.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in summary process in the City Court of Norwalk had judgment, and the defendant brought a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas. It was there erased on the ground that it could be made returnable only to the Supreme Court of Errors.

General Statutes, Cum. Sup. 1935, § 1667c, as amended, reads in part: “Writs of error for errors in matters of law only may be brought from the judgments of the superior court, any court of common pleas and any city court to the supreme court of errors.” Section 1665c reads in part: “A writ of error may be brought from an original judgment in summary process rendered by a justice of the peace or by any town or borough court to the court of common pleas.” These statutes are neither ambiguous nor contradictory. The word “may” in both obviously means that any writ of error brought shall be brought to the court named. *Lake Garda Co.*v. *661
      *LeWitt,*126 Conn. 588, 590, 13 A. 2d 510. Writs of error from city courts are returnable to the Supreme Court of Errors.

The claim of the amicus curiae that these acts are modified by § 736f of the 1941 Supplement is with - out merit. It reads: “Definition. Where used in this chapter, the term ‘municipal courts’ shall mean town, city, borough, city and police, police and traffic courts.” This section is in chapter 281b, entitled “Municipal Courts,” and the definition applies only in this chapter. Sections 1665c and 1667c are in chapter 296, entitled “New Trials and Writs of Error,” and the classification of courts therein is definite. The intention of the General Assembly to maintain the distinction is manifested by its amendment of both the latter sections, at the same session during which § 736f was enacted, by §§ 843f and 844f, where, although other verbal changes were made, the language quoted was not modified.

There is nothing in *Webb*v. Ambler, 125 Conn. 543, 7 A. 2d 228, which militates against this conclusion. As far as the point under discussion is concerned, that case decided that there is an appeal to this court from a judgment on a writ of error by the Superior or Common Pleas Courts.

There is no error.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Senior Airman CHRISTIAN R. MANN

United States Air Force

ACM 38444

07 MAY 2014

Sentence adjudged 17 July 2013 by GCM convened at Tinker Air Force 

Base, Oklahoma. Military Judge: Joshua E. Kastenberg (sitting alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 8 months, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Major Matthew T. King.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen and 

Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

MARKSTEINER, MITCHELL, and WEBER

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         122,792
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               364,416
<PP&E>                                       1,272,030
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,056,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,051,966
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,961
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,456,457
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,002,115)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,051,966
<SALES>                                        384,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               384,445
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  558,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,075
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (87,818)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (87,818)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (87,818)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Remarks and Releases
- Key Topics
- Reports
- Contact Us
- Public Meetings

HomeU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy...Remarks and Releases – U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

# 						Remarks and Releases – U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy					

		2009-2017 Archive		

12 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year2024202320222021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a LocationChina

Select a Release TypeMedia Note

Select a Bureau/OfficeOffice of Public Diplomacy and Public AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonU.S. Advisory Commission on Public DiplomacyUnder Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

          -    Media Note  		U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy	  February 20, 2024 
          -    Media Note  		U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy	  December 4, 2023 
          -    Media Note  		Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy	  June 5, 2023 
          -    Media Note  		Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy	  April 5, 2023 
          -    Media Note  		Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy	  January 11, 2023 
          -    Media Note  		Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy	  September 15, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy	  May 19, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy	  February 14, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy	  September 14, 2021 
          -    Media Note  		Notice of Meeting: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy	  June 14, 2021 

12next page

Back to Top