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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

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

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

November 25, 2013

p1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2013

147717

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147717

COA: 313107

Wayne CC: 07

- 024402

- FC

IMARI KUUMBE CALHOUN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 22, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### IMPERIAL COAL & COKE CO. v. HUGHES.

(Decided April 18, 1916.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. John H. Miller.

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow, for appellant. Hanby & Fisk, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
§ 27.1193 Cowling and engine compartment covering. ( a ) Each cowling and engine compartment covering must be constructed and supported so that it can resist the vibration, inertia, and air loads to which it may be subjected in operation.
( b ) There must be means for rapid and complete drainage of each part of the cowling or engine compartment in the normal ground and flight attitudes.
( c ) No drain may discharge where it might cause a fire hazard.
( d ) Each cowling and engine compartment covering must be at least fire resistant.
( e ) Each part of the cowling or engine compartment covering subject to high temperatures due to its nearness to exhaust system parts or exhaust gas impingement must be fireproof.
( f ) A means of retaining each openable or readily removable panel, cowling, or engine or rotor drive system covering must be provided to preclude hazardous damage to rotors or critical control components in the event of structural or mechanical failure of the normal retention means, unless such failure is extremely improbable.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-23, 53 FR 34214, Sept. 2, 1988]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4576 

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to make a technical correction 

to ensure that the extended lease protections for servicemembers under 

stop movement orders in response to a local, national, or global emergency applies to members of the Coast Guard when the Coast Guard 

is operating in the service of the Department of Homeland Security, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Mr. WICKER (for himself and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to make a 

technical correction to ensure that the extended lease 

protections for servicemembers under stop movement orders in response to a local, national, or global emergency 

applies to members of the Coast Guard when the Coast 

Guard is operating in the service of the Department 

of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4576 IS

1 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION REGARDING EXTEN2 SION OF LEASE PROTECTIONS FOR 

3 SERVICEMEMBERS UNDER STOP MOVEMENT 

4 ORDERS IN RESPONSE TO LOCAL, NATIONAL, 

5 OR GLOBAL EMERGENCY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 305(b) of the 

7 Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. 3955(b)), as 

8 amended by Public Law 116–158, is further amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)(C)(ii), by inserting ‘‘(or, in 

10 the case of the Coast Guard when operating in the 

11 service of the Department of Homeland Security, the 

12 Secretary of Homeland Security)’’ after ‘‘Secretary 

13 of Defense’’; and 

14 (2) in paragraph (2)(C)(ii), by inserting ‘‘(or, in 

15 the case of the Coast Guard when operating in the 

16 service of the Department of Homeland Security, the 

17 Secretary of Homeland Security)’’ after ‘‘Secretary 

18 of Defense’’. 

19 (b) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—The amendments 

20 made by this section shall apply to stop movement orders 

21 issued on or after March 1, 2020. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### STATE ex rel. COM’RS OF LAND OFFICE v. BROOKS et al.

No. 32980.

Oct. 21, 1947.

*185 P. 2d 906.*

Lonnie L. Corn and Floyd Wheeler, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Murray N. Gibbons, of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error has appealed from a judgment entered in the trial court respecting the distribution of certain funds received from the sale of real property. On March 26, 1947, plaintiff in error filed its brief and the authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of error. The defendants in error have filed no brief and have offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances, as stated in Gooldy v. Hines, 186 Okla. 583, 99 P. 2d 498, it is not the duty of this court to search the record for some theory upon which to sustain the action of the trial court, but the cause may be reversed and remanded, with directions.

The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions for the trial court to vacate its judgment distributing the funds in accordance with said judgment and to enter a judgment for the plaintiff approving the receiver’s report; directing the receiver to pay the costs of the action; directing the receiver to refund the plaintiff the sum of $77, expended for publication fees and further directing the receiver to pay the plaintiff the balance of said funds in his hands and to deny the request of the defendants for an allowance of a credit of $2,157.26 on' said judgment.

HURST, C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, WELCH, CORN, GIBSON, and LUTTRELL, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.710 Participants in conferences.

The persons entitled to be present in mail rate conferences will be the representatives of the carrier whose rates are in issue, the staff of the U.S. Postal Service, and the authorized DOT employees. No other person will attend unless the DOT employees deem his or her presence necessary in the interest of one or more purposes to be accomplished, and in such case his or her participation will be limited to such specific purposes. No person, however, shall have the duty to attend merely by reason of invitation by the authorized DOT employees.
#### BEMLEY v METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY

Case No. 90-118 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

May 17, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Douglas C. Hartman, Esquire, for appellant.

Robert A. Ginsburg, Dade County Attorney and John Mclnnis, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Before CAPUA, FERRO, WILSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FERRO, J.

This appeal follows the dismissal of the appellant from his position as a correctional officer with the Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

In *Jones v City of Hialeah,*294 So.2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), the court stated that “particularly in cases where individuals are threatened with serious deprivations such as the loss of a job” the hearsay rule *7should not be totally discarded. Although the technical rules of evidence do not apply in administrative hearings in the same fashion as in courtrooms, the concept of “fundamental fairness” requires that individuals be afforded the protections guaranteed through the Constitution. At a minimum, the appellant should have been given the opportunity to examine and confront the witnesses testifying against him.

The courts have clearly stated that hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to support the dismissal and/or termination from employment. *Spicer v Metropolitan Dade County,*458 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); and *McPherson v School Board Monroe County,*505 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). It is clear that the only evidence in this matter is the hearsay evidence introduced against the appellant.

The record of the proceedings below indicate that the appellant properly preserved this issue for the court’s consideration. There is nothing in the record, with the exception of the documents presented by the appellee, to meet their burden of proof. Justice requires that there be substantial competent evidence to uphold the county manager’s decision that deprives the appellant of his livelihood. The county manager’s decision is not supported by substantial competent evidence.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, we reverse and remand to the County Manager with instructions to grant the appellant a new administrative hearing.

CAPUA and WILSON, JJ., concur.

REVERSED.
#### Johnson *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided January 20, 1916.

71 South. 79.)

Intoxicating Liquors; Evidence. — The evidence in this case examined and held not to show facts affording an inference of guilt, and not to justify a conviction for unlawful selling.

Appeal from Winston County Court.

John Johnson was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

*63The evidence for the state tended to show: That just before Christmas the witness Roden met defendant in the road and asked him if he did not have some whisky. The defendant replied, “No.” That the witness saw the whisky in Johnson’s buggy, took the package out, wrapped in thin wrapping paper as used in stores, and pitched $1 in defendant’s buggy. That Johnson pitched it back and said he could not afford to sell the whisky. The package contained two bottles of rye whisky, not quite a half gallon in all. Defendant’s statement was practically the same as the witness above detailed, with the exception that the whisky was wrapped just as it was shipped to him from Tennessee, and that witness took the whisky without his consent.

Z. McVay and Travis Williams, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and H. G. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.

A careful reading of the evidence set out in the bill of exceptions does not seem to the members of the court to show sufficient facts affording an inference of guilt of any crime charged against the defendant in the complaint, or affidavit, upon which he was tried, upon which to base, or justify, a finding and judgment of conviction.

It follows that the judgment of conviction, from which the appeal is prosecuted, must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert E. Wasson, Jr., Appellant.

[— NYS2d —]

—Motion for reargument/reconsideration.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is ordered that the motion is granted, decision and order dated and entered March 5, 1998 (248 AD2d 763) vacated and a revised decision is handed down herewith *(see,*266 AD2d 701).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4356 

To reauthorize the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2020 

Mr. BURR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Blue Ridge National 

5 Heritage Area Reauthorization Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE BLUE RIDGE NATIONAL 

7 HERITAGE AREA. 

8 The Blue Ridge National Heritage Area Act of 2003 

9 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 108–108; 117 Stat. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4356 IS

1 1274; 131 Stat. 461; 132 Stat. 661; 133 Stat. 778) is 

2 amended— 

3 (1) in subsection (i)— 

4 (A) by striking paragraph (1) and insert5 ing the following: 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be 

7 appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for 

8 each fiscal year.’’; and 

9 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘sub10 section (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (j), by striking ‘‘2021’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘2036’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
PUBLIC LAW 113–110—JUNE 9, 2014 128 STAT. 1171 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1036: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Mar. 24, considered and passed House. 

May 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–110 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 103 Center 

Street West in Eatonville, Washington, as the ‘‘National Park Ranger Margaret 

Anderson Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK RANGER MARGARET ANDERSON POST 

OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 103 Center Street West in Eatonville, Washington, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘National Park Ranger 

Margaret Anderson Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

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

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘National Park Ranger Margaret Anderson Post Office’’. 

Approved June 9, 2014. 

June 9, 2014 

[H.R. 1036] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 4203 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 142

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 

### 30 $ 2,550.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 2,550



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Fl exibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriat e to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
#### § 39.7 What is the legal effect of failing to comply with an airworthiness directive?

Anyone who operates a product that does not meet the requirements of an applicable airworthiness directive is in violation of this section.
#### Vincenzo Esposito *vs.*Julia Tammaro.

Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,

April Term, 1917.

Prentice, C. J., Roraback, Wheeler, Beach and Shumway, Js.

Questions of law not raised in the court below are not entitled to consideration in this court.

Submitted on briefs April 11th—

decided June 1st, 1917.

Action to obtain certain rights alleged to have accrued to the plaintiff under a written contract, brought to.and tried by the Superior Court in New Haven County, *Tuttle, J.;*facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant.

*No error.*

*Robert J. Woodruff,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Charles L. Brooks*and *Harry L. Brooks,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

The assignments of error do not merit consideration, .as it appears that the questions of law which are. attempted to .be raised therein were not made in the court below.

There is no error.
#### Louis Witaszek, Appellant, *v.*Charles Drees et al., Defendants, and Granger and Company, Respondent.

(Submitted October 19, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*577
      *Roy*P. *Ohlin*for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, unless undertaking on appeal is filed within ten days, in which event the motion is denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1340** 

CHARMAINE L. ANDERSON , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. GREGORY JACKO, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv - 01370

- JFM )

Submitted : July 19, 2013 Decided: August 6, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Charmaine L. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ronald Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this cir cuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charmaine L. Anderson appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing her employment discrimination complaint, denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion for reconsideration, and denying her subsequent motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Anderson v. Jacko , No. 8

- 11

- cv - 01370

- JFM (D. Md. Jan. 11, 2013). In addition, we note that Anderson has waived certain claims by failing to raise them in her informal brief, see Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr.,
Inc. , 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009) , and has waived other claims by raising them for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246 , 250 (4th Cir. 1993) . 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
§ 291.2 Definitions. *All-cargo air transportation* means the transportation by aircraft in interstate air transportation of only property or only mail, or both.
*Interstate air transportation* means the transportation of passengers or property by aircraft as a common carrier for compensation, or the transportation of mail by aircraft— ( 1 ) Between a place in— ( i ) A State, territory, or possession of the United States and a place in the District of Columbia or another State, territory, or possession of the United States;
( ii ) Hawaii and another place in Hawaii through the airspace over a place outside Hawaii;
( iii ) The District of Columbia and another place in the District of Columbia; or
( iv ) A territory or possession of the United States and another place in the same territory or possession; and
( 2 ) When any part of the transportation is by aircraft.
*Reporting carrier* for Schedule T-100 purposes means the air carrier in operational control of the aircraft, i.e., the carrier that uses its flight crew under its own FAA operating authority.
*Section 41102 carrier* means an air carrier certificated under section 41102 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII to transport persons, property and mail or property and mail only.
*Section 41103 carrier* means an air carrier holding a certificate issued under section 41103 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII to provide all-cargo air transportation.
*Service, scheduled cargo* means transport service operated pursuant to published flight schedules including extra sections. There is no requirement on the number of weekly flights nor is there a requirement that the schedule be published in the Official Airline Guide.
*Wet-Lease Agreement* means an agreement under which one carrier leases an aircraft with flight crew to another air carrier.
[60 FR 43525, Aug. 22, 1995, as amended at 67 FR 49226, July 30, 2002; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15933, Apr. 16, 2019]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4485 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4485

   To modify the definition of critical technologies for purposes of 
  reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 6, 2020

  Mr. Tillis (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Rubio) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To modify the definition of critical technologies for purposes of 
  reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEWS 
              BY THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED 
              STATES.

    Section 721(a)(6)(A)(vi) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 
U.S.C. 4565(a)(6)(A)(vi)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``technologies controlled'' and inserting 
        the following: ``technologies--
                                    ``(I) controlled'';
            (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
        or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                                    ``(II) identified by the 
                                chairperson and one other member of the 
                                Committee as essential to the national 
                                security of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```