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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

July 6, 2021

b0628 

# Order

Clerk July 6, 2021

159271

LEONARD S. BOHN, Individually and as

Representative of a Class of Similarly

Situated Persons and Entities,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 159271

COA: 339306

Wayne CC: 15

- 013727

- CZ

CITY OF TAYLOR,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

By order of September 8, 2020, the application for leave to appeal the January 29,

2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in

DAART v City of Detroit (Docket No. 158852). On order of the Court, the case having

been decided on December 11, 2020, 506 Mich 996 (2020), the application is again

consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented

should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3062 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3062

  To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the 
 Interior to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sand 
          and a lease for oil and gas, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 10, 2003

  Mr. Cannon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the 
 Interior to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sand 
          and a lease for oil and gas, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. COMBINED HYDROCARBON LEASING.

    (a) Special Provisions Regarding Leasing.--Section 17(b)(2) of the 
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(B) The Secretary may issue under this Act for the same area, 
separately--
            ``(i) a lease for exploration for and extraction of tar 
        sand; and
            ``(ii) a lease for exploration for and development of oil 
        and gas.
    ``(C) A lease issued under subparagraph (B)(ii) shall not be 
further subject to the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (30 
U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
    ``(D) A lease issued for tar sand shall be issued using the same 
bidding process, annual rental, and posting period as a lease issued 
for oil and gas, except that the minimum acceptable bid required for a 
lease issued for tar sand shall be $2 per acre.
    ``(E) The Secretary may waive, suspend, or alter any requirement 
under section 26 that a permittee under a permit authorizing 
prospecting for tar sand must exercise due diligence, to promote any 
resource covered by a combined hydrocarbon lease.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 17(b)(1)(B) of the Mineral 
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(b)(1)(B)) is amended in the second sentence 
by inserting ``, subject to paragraph (2)(B),'' after ``The 
Secretary''.
    (c) Regulations.--Within 45 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall issue final regulations 
to implement this section.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000793730
<NAME>                        NHP Retirement Housing Partners I,L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         5,752,688
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         65,308,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (16,330,464)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 55,985,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        42,672,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (13,445,610)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   55,985,831
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,258,565
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,206,427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               281,401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,165,966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,395,229)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,395,229)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3011

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 1, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 135 East Olive Avenue in Burbank, California, 

as the ‘‘Bob Hope Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3011 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 135 East Olive Avenue in Burbank, California, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Bob Hope Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Bob Hope Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 30, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
CA Filed by Filing Services Canada Inc. 403-717-3898






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


 


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


 


 


In connection with the Annual Report for Bit-X Financial Corp. (the
“Company”) on


Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange


Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned,
Brad J. Moynes, Chief Financial Officer do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:


 


 


(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities


Exchange Act of 1934; and


 


(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the


Financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.


 


 


By:


 


 


/s/ Brad J. Moynes


Brad J. Moynes


Chief Financial Officer


April 30, 2015
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/27

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 27 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 30, 2015

t0622 

# Order

Clerk June 30, 2015

150215

THERESA MODZELEWSKI

- SHEKOSKI,

Pers onal Representative of the ESTATE OF

MICHAEL RAYMOND SHEKOSKI,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150215

COA: 314830

Macomb CC: 2010

- 001959

- NI

MICHAEL GARRETT BINDIG and ALLIED

EXCAVATION, INC.,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 18, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented shoul d be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52459-52460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24533]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (Items 1-4, 9 
a.m.-12 noon; Item 5, 2 p.m.-5 p.m.

[[Page 52460]]


Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Commission Briefing/Meeting-Open to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered

    1. Lab Accreditation Requirements for Lead.
    2. Brass Lead Exclusions Petition.
    3. Lead Determination Guidance.
    4. Recreational Off Highway Vehicles (ROHVS) ANPR.
    5. Toy Safety Certification Program, Toy Industry Association 
(TIA), Consumers Union (CU) and Consumer Federation of America (CFA).
    (This meeting was requested by the participants. For the 
convenience of all of the Commissioners, the meetings are being 
consolidated into one public meeting.)
    A live webcast of the Briefing can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast/index.html.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: October 6, 2009.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24533 Filed 10-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44228

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

GEORGE KUUALOHA ANA, JR.

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 353

Filed: February 3, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Elmore County. Hon. Jonathan Medema , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for lewd conduct with a minor under
sixteen, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

George Kuualoha Ana, Jr., pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen . Idaho

Code § 18

- 1508 . The district court sentenced Ana to a unified term of ten years with five years

determinate

. Ana appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to

place him on probation

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well es tablished and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed t he record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Ana ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000900017
<NAME> THOMAS GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,396
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                       150
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,778
<PP&E>                                           7,268
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,538
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               62
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,532
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,256
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (76)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,690
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,075
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,615
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,615
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023018EN.01000501.xml

| 19.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

18 January 2023

(2023/C 18/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0839 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,79 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4399 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87530 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,1735 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9906 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 154,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,6553 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,954 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 396,15 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6983 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9388 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 20,3706 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5413 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4505 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4814 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6683 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4280 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 337,16 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,3960 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3193 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 307,20 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6754 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,170 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,633 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5252 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,2193 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 88,1420 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0839

JPY

Japanese yen

139,79

DKK

Danish krone

7,4399

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87530

SEK

Swedish krona

11,1735

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9906

ISK

Iceland króna

154,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,6553

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,954

HUF

Hungarian forint

396,15

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6983

RON

Romanian leu

4,9388

TRY

Turkish lira

20,3706

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5413

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4505

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4814

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6683

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4280

KRW

South Korean won

1 337,16

ZAR

South African rand

18,3960

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3193

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 307,20

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6754

PHP

Philippine peso

59,170

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

35,633

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5252

MXN

Mexican peso

20,2193

INR

Indian rupee

88,1420

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
# C_2022385EN.01002401.xml

| 6.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 385/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 385/24

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Landsréttur dated 9 June 2022 in the case of Verkfræðingafélag Íslands, Stéttarfélag tölvunarfræðinga og Lyfjafræðingafélag Íslands v the Icelandic State

(Case E-9/22)

(2022/C 385/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court, dated 9 June 2022, from Landsréttur (the Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 June 2022, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Verkfræðingafélag Íslands) (Association of Chartered Engineers in Iceland), Stéttarfélag tölvunarfræðinga (Computer Scientists’ Union) and Lyfjafræðingafélag Íslands (Pharmaceutical Society of Iceland) versus the Icelandic State, on the following questions:

| 1. | Does it follow from Article 1(1) and Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC, and also from the principle of effectiveness, that an employer who intends to terminate contracts with a group of workers covering fixed overtime is required to observe the procedural rules laid down in the Directive, including as regards consultation with workers’ representatives under Article 2 of the Directive and notification of the competent public authority under Article 3 of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it follow from Article 1(1) and Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC, and also from the principle of effectiveness, that an employer who intends to terminate contracts with a group of workers covering fixed overtime is required to observe the procedural rules laid down in the Directive, including as regards consultation with workers’ representatives under Article 2 of the Directive and notification of the competent public authority under Article 3 of the Directive?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the employer’s obligation cease to apply if termination of contracts covering fixed overtime does not subsequently result in the full termination of the workers’ employment contracts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the employer’s obligation cease to apply if termination of contracts covering fixed overtime does not subsequently result in the full termination of the workers’ employment contracts?

| 3. | Is it of significance for the answer to the first two questions whether the contracts covering fixed overtime which the employer terminates were specifically made in independent contracts that were additional to the workers’ employment contracts? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it of significance for the answer to the first two questions whether the contracts covering fixed overtime which the employer terminates were specifically made in independent contracts that were additional to the workers’ employment contracts?

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1750
TAMILLA L. BARNARD RAMSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Dennis L. Howell, Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00234-DLH) Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 17, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. V. Lamar Gudger, III, GUDGER & GUDGER, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Paul B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert J. Triba, Chief Regional Counsel, Region I, Jason W. Valencia, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 2 PER CURIAM: Tamilla L. Bernard Ramsey appeals the magistrate judge’s order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny supplemental security income. * We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Craig v. Chater , 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, administrative record, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See Ramsey v. Astrue , No. 1:06-cv-00234-DLH (W.D.N.C. June 2, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
C o l v i l l e 

Ikpikp

uk 

River 

R i v

e

r 

Nuiqsut 

Umiat 

Atigaru Point 

Cape Halkett 

H a r r i s o n

B a y 

Pitt Point 

B e a u f o r t

S e a 

F i s h

C r e e k 

T i n g m

i a

k s

i q v i k R i v e r 

K i k i a k r o r a k

R i v e r 

K o g o s u k r u k

R i v e r 

J ud y

Cr e e k 

Migu akiak R. 

1 E 

2 

11 

8 

6 

9 N 

A R C T I C O C E A N

Cape Simpson 

Sm it h Bay 

15 N

4 3 2 1 W 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5

Teshekpuk Lake Kogru R. 14

13

12

10

2 3 4 5

1 W 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

5

4

3

2

1 N 

2 3 4 5

1 W 1 E 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

1 S 

3 Cultural Resources 

Alaska Heritage Resource Survey and 4

Traditional Land Use Inventory Sites

5

0 6 12

Miles 6

Source: ADHR, OHA 2003; NSB, 2003

Map 3-34. Cultural Resources in the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 

7 

2