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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 128529 & (18) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128529 COA: 257609 Saginaw CC: 00-019048-FC ERIC LAMARR MACON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the April 7, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion for stay of proceedings is DENIED.

d1024 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.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
#### § 4000.51 What are these record retention rules about?

The rules in this subpart E of part 4000 tell you what methods you may use to meet any record retention requirement under our regulations if you choose to use electronic means. The rules for who must retain the records, how long the records must be maintained, and how records must be made available to us are contained in the specific part where the record retention requirement is found. (Subpart A tells you what filing methods you may use for filings with us and how we determine your filing date. Subpart B tells you what methods you may use to issue a notice or otherwise provide information to any person other than us. Subpart C tells you how we determine your filing or issuance date. Subpart D tells you how to compute various periods of time.)
----

----

I Mededelingen

Commissie

----

Wisselkoersen van de euro (1)

30 juni 2004

(2004/C 171/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Bron: door de Europese Centrale Bank gepubliceerde referentiekoers.

----
#### BERWALD, Recr etc v SUMMIT PARK REALTY CO et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahogaa Co

No. 9547.

Decided June 10, 1929

Garfield, Cross, MacGregor, Daoust, and Baldwin, Cleveland, for Berwald.

Suggs, Garber and Howard D. Burnett, Cleveland, for Realty Co.

LEVINE, J.

In support of the validity of the Burnett mortgage we are cited to the case of Coggshall v The Marine Banking Co., 63 OS. 89 wherein it is held' that the interest of a vendor under a land contract is not that of a mere naked trustee for a vendee but he holds not only the land title but a beneficial estate in the lands to the extent of unpaid purchase money.

As will be seen from the syllabus and the opinion, .all that the case holds is that in an action by a judgment creditor to marshall liens and sell attached property to satisfy the judgment, the interest of the vendor under his lien for -the unoaid purchase money may be reached. The law applicable to this case is fully settled in the case of Yeager vs Harvey, 48 OS. 335.

We are referred to the letter of Burberry dated Dec, 26, 1925 wherein he spoke of two mortgages on the property. This is explained away by the statement that because the different notes secured by the same first mortgage were held in different hands Burberry referred to the same as “two mortgages.” This letter of Dec. 26, 1925, written by Burberry, is the strongest evidence adduced in favor of Burnett to the effect that Burberry knew of the existence of the second mortgage on Dec. 26, 1925, but in view of the explanation given as to the use of the phrase “two mortgages” and the positive evidence on the part of Burberry that he did not know of the existence of the second mortgage to Burnett until the matter came up in the common pleas court in 1925, there is not in our opinion sufficient evidence to show that knowledge came to Burberry of the *441existence of the second mortgage long before suit was filed.

Under the laws as set down in Yaeger vs Harvey supra, the vendee of a land contract must be protected as to all money paid by him under his land contract until either actual notice comes to him of the existence of the second mortgage or such information as would lead a person of ordinary prudence to diligent inquiry which would discover the fact of the existence of the second mortgage. No such showing is made of record and it is our opinion that as to money actually paid under the land contract by Burberry that he has a prior lien to the claim of the second mortgagee.

As to the money spent by Burberry in improvements since he entered into possession of the house and lot, this was his voluntary act and was not done by virtue of the land contract which he entered into with The Summit Park Realty Co., for the purchase of the land. In our opinion no prior lien attaches in his favor as to this money spent by him in improvements. A decree will be granted in favor of Burberry giving him a prior lien to that of the second mortgagee as to all monies paid by him under the land contract. A decree will be drawn accordingly.

Vickery, PJ, and Sullivan, J, concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Crdentia Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, James D. Durham, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to myknowledge:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the datesand for the periods indicated.

 

This Certification has not been, and shallnot be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

 
| Date:  May 15, 2006 | By:                                  | /s/ James D. Durham |   |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|                               | James D. Durham                      |
|                               | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 49 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 49

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on Thursday, October 4, 2007, 
or Friday, October 5, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on Monday, October 15, 2007, or 
such other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader 
or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time 
of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate, after consultation with 
the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the 
Senate to reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if, in 
his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the Senate October 4, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 49

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate.
```
## Exhibit B

Great River Information Technologies

Permission/Waiver

You have requested an aerial videography of your home by Great River Information Technologies In order to do so, Great River Information Technologies requires your written permission to enter your property in order to conduct an on

- site survey of your property and it's surroundings; and to launch/fly an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) over your home and it's surroundings. This is absolutely necessary in order to conduct a safe flight. We will not proceed without written approval.

Great River Information Technologies will take every precaution to ensure that no damage occurs as a result of the flight . We reserve the right to cancel the flight at any time without penalty due to Force Majeure or Act of God.

UAV damage can result from contact with any source such as landscaping, trees, utility poles and the house itself. While we pride ourselves on our professionalism and flying skill, there is always inherent danger in flight. A sudden and unexpected gust of wind could blow the UAV off its planned course. If the UAV contacts an object, it generally results in damage to the UAV. Minor property damage may occur.

Great River Information Technologies accepts no responsibility for any damage incurred by your home or personal property as a result of the UAV flight of your home or property. You agree to hold harmless Great River Information Technologies, it's owners and operators should any damage occur.Great River Information Technologies retains **sole ownership** of all video shot on or around your property. We NEVER sell our video to you or any third party; rather we sell our expertise and video editing servi ces. All rights reserved by Great River Information Technologies.

We will issue you a license to display, upload and/or broadcast the final edited version by you, your real estate agent/agency or any other entity designated by you in writing. We will neve r display your address without your written approval.

Our fees are based on the size of the property, it's location and the extent of aerial coverage and software development services requested by you. Additional services such as increased length of

vid eo production, additional flying time, titling and editing will increase the project cost. Unless there is an error or omission on our part, the edit will be considered final and not subject to your prior approval or consent.

Subject Property Address:___

_____________________________

Signed and Accepted by:_________________________________

Date: _______________
#### § 414.35 Monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions of a safety element approval.

Each holder of a safety element approval must allow access by, and cooperate with, Federal officers or employees or other individuals authorized by the Associate Administrator to inspect manufacturing, production, testing, or assembly performed by a holder of a safety element approval or its contractor. The FAA may also inspect a safety element approval process or service, including training programs and personnel qualifications.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Nebraska�s forest resources in...**
 
2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
2010 | 2011 | 2012
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.163/27:
Item Number:0084-N-27 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000936261
 
March 28, 2018
The National Transportation Safety Board will convene a public hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m., local time on Wednesday, January 26-29, 2000, at the Arkansas Excelsior Hotel, Three Statehouse Plaza, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, concerning                     *American Airlines, Inc., Flight 1420, McDonnell Douglas MD-82 Accident in Little Rock, Arkansas on June 1, 1999.*                     For more information, contact Ben Berman, NTSB Office of Aviation Safety at (202) 314-6331 or Paul Schlamm NTSB Office of Public Affairs at (202) 314-6100.                

Individuals requesting specific accommodation should contact Mrs. Carolyn Dargan on 202-314-6305 by Friday, January 21, 2000.

Dated: January 13, 2000.

Rhonda Underwood,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-1283 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
§ 2570.156 Expedited proceedings. For section 3(40) Finding Proceedings, this section shall apply instead of 29 CFR 18.42. ( a ) At any time after commencement of a proceeding, any party may move to advance the scheduling of a proceeding, including the time for conducting discovery.
( b ) Except when such proceedings are directed by the Chief Administrative Law Judge or the administrative law judge assigned, any party filing a motion under this section shall: ( 1 ) Make the motion in writing;
( 2 ) Describe the circumstances justifying advancement;
( 3 ) Describe the irreparable harm that would result if the motion is not granted; and
( 4 ) Incorporate in the motion affidavits to support any representations of fact.
( c ) Service of a motion under this section shall be accomplished by personal delivery, or by facsimile, followed by first class, prepaid, U.S. mail. Service is complete upon personal delivery or mailing.
( d ) Except when such proceedings are required, or unless otherwise directed by the Chief Administrative Law Judge or the administrative law judge assigned, all parties to the proceeding in which the motion is filed shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of the motion to file an opposition in response to the motion.
( e ) Following the timely receipt by the administrative law judge of statements in response to the motion, the administrative law judge may advance pleading schedules, discovery schedules, prehearing conferences, and the hearing, as deemed appropriate; provided, however, that a hearing on the merits shall not be scheduled with less than five (5) working days notice to the parties, unless all parties consent to an earlier hearing.
( f ) When an expedited hearing is held, the decision of the administrative law judge shall be issued within twenty (20) days after receipt of the transcript of any oral hearing or within twenty (20) days after the filing of all documentary evidence if no oral hearing is conducted.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 996 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to expand passenger facility fee 

eligibility for certain noise compatibility projects. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2007 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to expand passenger 

facility fee eligibility for certain noise compatibility projects. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPANDED PASSENGER FACILITY FEE ELIGI4 BILITY FOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY 

5 PROJECTS. 

6 Section 40117(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(7) NOISE MITIGATION FOR CERTAIN

9 SCHOOLS.— 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 996 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the 

2 uses specified in paragraphs (1), (4), and (6), 

3 the Secretary may authorize a passenger facility 

4 fee imposed under paragraph (1) or (4) at a 

5 large hub airport that is the subject of an 

6 amended judgment and final order in con7 demnation filed on January 7, 1980, by the Su8 perior Court of the State of California for the 

9 county of Los Angeles, to be used for a project 

10 to carry out noise mitigation for a building, or 

11 for the replacement of a relocatable building 

12 with a permanent building, in the noise im13 pacted area surrounding the airport at which 

14 such building is used primarily for educational 

15 purposes, notwithstanding the air easement 

16 granted or any terms to the contrary in such 

17 judgment and final order, if— 

18 ‘‘(i) the Secretary determines that the 

19 building is adversely affected by airport 

20 noise; 

21 ‘‘(ii) the building is owned or char22 tered by the school district that was the 

23 plaintiff in case number 986,442 or 

24 986,446, which was resolved by such judg25 ment and final order; 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 996 IS

1 ‘‘(iii) the project is for a school identi2 fied in 1 of the settlement agreements ef3 fective February 16, 2005, between the 

4 airport and each of the school districts; 

5 ‘‘(iv) in the case of a project to re6 place a relocatable building with a perma7 nent building, the eligible project costs are 

8 limited to the actual structural construc9 tion costs necessary to mitigate aircraft 

10 noise in instructional classrooms to an in11 terior noise level meeting current stand12 ards of the Federal Aviation Administra13 tion; and 

14 ‘‘(v) the project otherwise meets the 

15 requirements of this section for authoriza16 tion of a passenger facility fee. 

17 ‘‘(B) ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS.—In sub18 paragraph (A)(iv), the term ‘eligible project 

19 costs’ means the difference between the cost of 

20 standard school construction and the cost of 

21 construction necessary to mitigate classroom 

22 noise to the standards of the Federal Aviation 

23 Administration.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### ARTISTIC CREATIONS, INC. v HYATT CORPORATION, et al.

Case No. 85-289 AP (County Court Case No. 83-5587, CC23)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

March 6, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Howard Horowitz for appellant.

Leonard H. Bloom for appellees.

Before GOLDMAN, KAYE, FEDER, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant. We reverse.

The record in this case clearly reflects a number of disputed factual issues which cannot be resolved as a matter of law. The Plaintiff failed to establish the non-existence of material issues. *Levey v. Getelman,*408 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); *Fletcher v. Petman Enterprises, Inc.,*324 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

The Judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for a trial on the merits of the case.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12771]



[[Page 32129]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-33,947]


Herman Katz Enterprises, d/b/a H.K. Company Now Known as Katz 
Lace Corporation, New York, NY; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on December 11, 1997, applicable 
to workers of Herman Katz Enterprises, d/b/a H.K. Company, New York, 
New York. The notice was published in the Federal Register on January 
6, 1998 (63 FR 578).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged 
in the production of lace and performed office, administration, 
warehousing and distribution services. The company reports that in 
October, 1997, Herman Katz Enterprises, d/b/a H.K. Company ``became 
known as Katz Lace Corporation''. Worker separations continued to occur 
at the subject firm until its closing in November, 1999.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification 
determination to correctly identify the new title name to read ``Herman 
Katz Enterprises, d/b/a H.K. Company, now know as Katz Lace 
Corporation'', New York, New York.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Herman Katz Enterprises, d/b/a H.K. Company, now known as 
Katz Lace Corporation who were adversely affected by increased imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-33, 947 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Herman Katz Enterprises, d/b/a H.K. Company, now 
known as Katz Lace Corporation, New York, New York who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 
7, 1996 through December 11, 1999 are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of May 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-12771 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### § 4042.3 Issuance rules.

PBGC applies the rules in subpart B of part 4000 of this chapter to determine permissible methods of issuance under this part. PBGC applies the rules in subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter to determine the date that an issuance under this part was provided.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2426
SUE F. DAVIS, and on behalf on her children, Katherine D. Davis and Charlise S. Davis, and in class; DONNA MCCOMAS, individually and in class, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versusRHONE-POULENC, INCORPORATED, d/b/a RhonePoulenc Ag Company, a New York Corporation; THE INSTITUTE PLANT OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-525-2) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 28, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sue F. Davis, Donna McComas, Appellants Pro Se. Alvin Lee Emch, Gretchen M. Callas, Mychal Schultz, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees and dismissing this civilaction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Rhone-Poulenc Inc. , No. CA-96-525-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 11, 1997). We deny Appellants’ motion to have deposition transcripts made a part of the record on appealand 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