alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Roy “X” 9 ROSS, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Warden William H. BANNAN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15244.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

June 20, 1963.

Roy “X” 9 Ross, Jr., Willie “X” Smith, Ernest “X” Ford, appellants, in pro per.

Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor Gen., Lansing, Mich. (Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Donald T. Kane, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., on the brief), for appellees.

Before O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, and WILSON and FOX, District Judges.

ORDER.

This Cause having come on to be heard upon the record and briefs, and upon the statement of counsel for appellees, made in open court, and upon due consideration of all of the foregoing,

It Is Ordered that the judgment of the District Court be, and it is, hereby affirmed.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 23, 2009

s0316 

# Order

March 23, 2009

137956

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137956 COA: 277716 Delta CC: 06-007679-FH GREGORY PAUL BRICKER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 18, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 10-1**

 

 

**THE NAVIGATORS GROUP, INC.**

**2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN**

 

**STOCK GRANT AWARD CERTIFICATE AND RESTRICTED STOCKAGREEMENT**

 

ThisCertificate, when executed by a duly authorized officer of The NavigatorsGroup, Inc. (the “Company”), evidences the grant to the Participant namedherein of a stock grant Award for shares of the Common Stock of the Company inaccordance with the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).

 

1.             Participant:

 

2.             Numberof shares of Common Stock subject to the Award:

 

3.             Effectivedate of the Award:

 

4.             AwardVesting Period (see Plan document for complete details):

 

Withrespect to the shares subject to the Award, 25% of such shares vest on thefirst anniversary of the effective date of the Award, 50% of such shares veston the second anniversary of the effective date of the Award, 75% of suchshares vest on the third anniversary of the effective date of the Award and100% of such shares vest on the fourth anniversary of the effective date of theAward.

 

5.             Employeeshall make such arrangements with the Company with respect to income taxwithholding as the Company shall determine in its sole discretion isappropriate to ensure payment of federal, state or local income taxes.

 

6.             Eachparticipant receiving Common Stock resulting from an Award agrees that suchAward and related Common Stock shall be subject to, and governed by, all of theterms of the Plan, and represents and warrants to the Company that such CommonStock is for investment for his or her own account and will not sell orotherwise dispose of said Common Stock except in compliance with the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended. By acceptance of this Certificate, the Participantagrees to abide by all terms and conditions of the Plan.  Terms defined in the Plan are used in thisCertificate as so defined.

 

**ThisCertificate is not a security and does not represent the stock grant  Award described herein but, rather, describesthe Common Stock granted to the Participant as reflected on the books andrecords of the Company.  Neither thisCertificate nor the stock grant Award represented hereby are assignable ortransferable by the Participant except as otherwise permitted under the Plan.**

 
|   | The Navigators  Group, Inc. |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |                        |
|   | By:                         |   |   |
|   |                        | Stanley A.  Galanski |   |
|   |                        | President &  Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**  I, Brian Carter, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of DIRT Motor Sports, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;    b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresas of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the“Evaluation Date”); and    c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any materialweaknesses in internal controls; and    b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.        Date:  May 12, 2006 /s/ Brian Carter   Brian Carter,   Chief Financial Officer  
-37-
#### The Railway Advertising Co., Appellant, *v.*Charles H. Posner et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, sixth district, borough of Manhattan.

*784Richard T. Greene, for appellant.

Cornelius E. Collins, for respondents.

*Per Ouriam.*

In this case the justice found that the defendants were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $377, but gave judgment for the defendants, with costs. This conclusion was evidently reached upon the theory that there had been a sufficient tender of the amount due before suit, but the defendants, to avail themselves of this defense should have pleaded the tender, and kept the tender good by paying the same into court. Becker v. Boon, 61 N. Y. 317. They did-neither, and the judgment was, therefore, improper. Without considering the other errors assigned, the judgment should be reversed.

Present: Beekmae, P. J., Giegebich and O’Gobmah, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appel-

lant to abide event
## Customer Satisfaction

**TO BE COMPLETED BY AT PROGRAM STAFF** I D ( o p t i o n a l )

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S e rv i c e s p r o v i d e d : **Device demonstration Device loan**  **“State financing” services**

**— including fi**  **nancial loan, assistance in accessing funds for AT devices/services, assistance in obtaining AT devices and services at reduced cost or**  **free, or other related services Device reutilization** 
**— received an AT device through a device exc**  **hange or recycling program**  D a t e s e rv i c e d e l i v e r y w a s c o m p l e t e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D a t e t h i s f o r m w a s r e c e i v e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

### 1. Wh ich of the following best reflects your level of satisfaction with the services you received? **(Check one.)** _____ Highly satisfied _____ Satisfi ed _____ Satisfied somewhat _____ Not at all satisfied

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting bur den for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.5 minutes per response, including time for reviewing inst ructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 , as amende d, to retain benefit of the State Grant for AT Pr ogram. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave ., SW, Washington, DC 20210

- 4537 or email ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1820

- 0572

.
§ 104.23 Expert or opinion testimony. ( a ) ( 1 ) If the General Counsel authorizes an employee to give testimony in a legal proceeding not involving the United States, the testimony, if otherwise proper, shall be limited to facts within the personal knowledge of the employee. Employees, with or without compensation, shall not provide expert testimony in any legal proceedings regarding Office information, subjects, or activities except on behalf of the United States or a party represented by the United States Department of Justice.
( 2 ) The General Counsel may authorize an employee to appear and give the expert or opinion testimony upon the requester showing, pursuant to § 104.3 of this part, that exceptional circumstances warrant such testimony and that the anticipated testimony will not be adverse to the interest of the Office or the United States.
( b ) ( 1 ) If, while testifying in any legal proceeding, an employee is asked for expert or opinion testimony regarding Office information, subjects, or activities, which testimony has not been approved in advance in writing in accordance with the regulations in this subpart, the witness shall: ( i ) Respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that such expert or opinion testimony is forbidden by this subpart;
( ii ) Request an opportunity to consult with the General Counsel before giving such testimony; and
( iii ) Explain that upon such consultation, approval for such testimony may be provided.
( 2 ) If the tribunal conducting the proceeding then orders the employee to provide expert or opinion testimony regarding Office information, subjects, or activities without the opportunity to consult with the General Counsel, the employee shall respectfully refuse to provide such testimony, citing *United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen,* 340 U.S. 462 (1951).
( c ) If an employee is unaware of the regulations in this subpart and provides expert or opinion testimony regarding Office information, subjects, or activities in a legal proceeding without the aforementioned consultation, the employee shall, as soon after testifying as possible, inform the General Counsel that such testimony was given and provide a written summary of the expert or opinion testimony provided.
( d ) *Proceeding where the United States is a party.* In a proceeding in which the United States is a party or is representing a party, an employee may not testify as an expert or opinion witness for any party other than the United States.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                  5

<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BEL
FUSE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
AND THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>               1

       

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                  24,871,426
<SECURITIES>                                             2,472,654
<RECEIVABLES>                                            9,998,863
<ALLOWANCES>                                               195,000
<INVENTORY>                                             11,710,759
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        49,487,092
<PP&E>                                                  53,360,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                          24,295,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          79,243,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    8,915,854
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                   511,042
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                              68,912,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            79,243,293
<SALES>                                                 53,119,948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        53,119,948
<CGS>                                                   37,165,097
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           47,059,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          7,105,464
<INCOME-TAX>                                             1,488,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      5,617,464
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                             5,617,464
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        


</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 223/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.223.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 223 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 562 August 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.223.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 223

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 562 August 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 223/01 | Guidelines on the details of the various categories of variations, on the operation of the procedures laid down in Chapters II, IIa, III and IV of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008 of 24 November 2008 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products and on the documentation to be submitted pursuant to those procedures | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 223/01

Guidelines on the details of the various categories of variations, on the operation of the procedures laid down in Chapters II, IIa, III and IV of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008 of 24 November 2008 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products and on the documentation to be submitted pursuant to those procedures

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0593. RANDALL JOEY FUTCH, JR. v. THE STATE.

A jury found Randall Joey Futch, Jr. guilty of aggravated battery and theft by

taking. Futch filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied in part.

However, the trial court found that Futch wasimproperly sentenced to serve ten years

for theft by taking and scheduled a resentencing hearing. Futch filed a notice of

appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction. 

Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), defendants have the right to directly appeal

from all “final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the

court below.” A “case is not final and ripe for appeal until a sentence has been entered

on each count of the indictment that was the subject of the trial.” Keller v. State, 275

Ga. 680, 681 (571 SE2d 806) (2002). Based on the record before us, Futch has not yet

been re-sentenced.Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction overthis appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED. 

Upon entry of the sentencing order, the superior court clerk is DIRECTED to

re-transmit Futch’s appeal to this Court for re-docketing. Futch need not file a second

notice of appeal. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 23, 2021

11/23/2021
#### § 1009.2 Definitions.

For purposes of this part:

*Depository institution* means any bank or savings association as defined under 12 U.S.C. 1813, or any credit union organized and operated according to the laws of any state, the District of Columbia, the several territories and possessions of the United States, the Panama Canal Zone, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which laws provide for the organization of credit unions similar in principle and objectives to Federal credit unions.

*Lacking Federal deposit insurance* means the depository institution is neither an insured depository institution as defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(2), nor an insured credit union as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. 1752.

*Standard maximum deposit insurance amount* means the maximum amount of deposit insurance as determined under section 11(a)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)).
#### CAIRO, TRUMAN & SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES ET AL.

March 2, 1925.

[58 C. Cls. 336; 267 U. S. 350]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding:

1. An agreement between a railroad company and the Director General of Railroads for settlement and release of claims like the agreement in *St. Louis, etc., R. R. Oo.*v. *United States,*267 U. S. 346, considered and *held*within the authority of the Director General; and binding on the railroad, even if without consideration, it being under seal, and operative on the claim in question.

*2:*Allegations *held*not sufficient to charge duress.

Mr. Justice BraNdeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Petition of -- ) 

) 

First Division Design, LLC ) 

) 

Under Contract No. F A5270- l 3-P-O 177 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE PETITIONER: 

ASBCA No. 60884-975 

Mr. Craig F. Pierce 

Manager/Member 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 

Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 

Phillip E. Reiman, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE l(a)(5) 

DIRECTING CONTRACTING OFFICER TO ISSUE DECISION 

The contractor filed, under Rule l(a)(5), a request for an order directing the 

contracting officer to render a decision on the contractor's settlement proposal and claim. 

The government has advised that a final decision will be issued by 19 December 2016. 

We deem this date reasonable. 

This Order completes all necessary action by the Board. 

Dated: 15 December 2016 

(Signatures continued) 

r MARK N. STEMPLER 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I concur 

~ACKLEFORD Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

-~h- PERD.TING 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

s 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order Pursuant to Rule l(a)(5) 

of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA 60884-975, Petition of 

First Division Design, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****NGA Chart: 97021          Scale: 1,000,000          Edition: 7          Edition Date: 30-JUN-90          CORRECTED TO NTM:  1990/38**Notice ListingOCVLeftIndex-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NGA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NGA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **