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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 131174 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131174 COA: 269753 Saginaw CC: 00-019048-FC ERIC LAMARR MACON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 27, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

d1023 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, 2006

Clerk
#### § 4261.1 Cross-reference.

See § 4281.47 for procedures for applying to the PBGC for financial assistance under section 4261 of ERISA.
Exhibit 23.1



                       Independent Auditors' Consent





The Board of Directors
Arrow-Magnolia International, Inc.




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Nos. 333-47709 and 333-01511) on Form S-8 of Arrow-
Magnolia International, Inc. of our report dated March 8, 1999,
relating to the balance sheet of Arrow-Magnolia International,
Inc. as of December 31, 1998, and the related statements of
income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year ended
December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998,
annual report on form 10-KSB of Arrow-Magnolia International,
Inc.




                              PHILIP VOGEL & CO. PC


Dallas, Texas
March 31, 1999
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 49473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20285]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0558; FRL-8883-7]

Cancellation of Pesticides for Non-Payment of Year 2011 
Registration Maintenance Fees; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of July 27, 2011, 
concerning cancellation of pesticides for non-payment of year 2011 
registration maintenance fees. This document is being issued to correct 
Table 2 of the cancellation notice by removing five entries which were 
inadvertently included.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Jamula, Information Technology 
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide 
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-6426; e-mail 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in the July 27, 2011 notice a list of those who 
may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0558. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either in the electronic 
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard 
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public 
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal 
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

II. What Does This Correction Do?

    This notice is being issued to correct Table 2 of the cancellation 
notice. This correction removes five entries which were inadvertently 
included as follows:
    FR Doc. 2011-18706 published in the Federal Register of July 27, 
2011 (76 FR 44907) (FRL-8879-8) is corrected as follows:
    1. On page 44908, in Table 2, remove the complete entry for: 
``003282-00092'' ``003282-00093,'' ``003282-00094,'' and ``003282-
00095.''
    2. On page 44910, in Table 2, remove the complete entry for 
``069876-00001.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: August 3, 2011.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-20285 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### § 525.19 Investigations and hearings.

The Administrator may conduct an investigation, which may include a hearing, prior to taking any action pursuant to these regulations. To the extent it is deemed appropriate, the Administrator may provide an opportunity to other interested persons to present data and views. Proceedings initiated pursuant to this section are separate from those taken pursuant to FLSA section 14(c)(5) and § 525.22.
#### § 511.9 Requirements for quorum and decisions.

Two-thirds of the members of an industry committee shall constitute a quorum. Approval by a majority of all of the members of an industry committee or subcommittee shall be required for its report. Except as otherwise provided in this part, the chairperson of the industry committee or subcommittee may make other decisions for the committee or subcommittee, but each such decision shall be subject to approval of a majority of the members present if any member objects.

[55 FR 53298, Dec. 28, 1990]
#### §§ 4907.152-4907.159 [Reserved]
GWLANY-SchwabAdvisorChoiceVAPEA1ConsentLetter4_10_2015






	
		
	Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.
	ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW | Suite 400 East
Washington, DC  20007-5208
202.965.8100 | fax 202.965.8104
www.CFJBLaw.com
Atlanta
Hartford
Miami
New York
Orlando
St. Petersburg
Tallahassee
Tampa
Washington, DC
West Palm Beach








Exhibit 10(a)






April 10, 2015




Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company of New York
50 Main Street
9th Floor
White Plains, New York  10606


Re:  Variable Annuity-1 Series Account 
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement on N-4
File Nos. 333-194100 and 811-08183


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have acted as counsel to Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company of New York, a New York corporation, regarding the federal securities laws applicable to the issuance and sale of the contracts described in the above-referenced registration statement.  We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption “Legal Matters” in the prospectus filed as part of the above-referenced registration statement. In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.


Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.



100761889.1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS, INC.

                            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 Report of LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth C.
Donahey, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: October 29, 2003

                                /s/ Kenneth C. Donahey
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                Kenneth C. Donahey
                                Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
#### § 783.36 Barge tenders.

Barge tenders on non-selfpropelled barges who perform the normal duties of their occupation, such as attending to the lines and anchors, putting out running and mooring lights, pumping out bilge water, and other similar activities necessary and usual to the navigation of barges, are considered to be employed as “seamen” for the purposes of the Act unless they do a substantial amount of “non-seaman's” work (*Gale* v. *Union Bag & Paper Corp.,* 116 F. (2d) 27 (C.A. 5, 1940), cert. den. 313 U.S. 559 (1941)). However, there are employees who, while employed on vessels such as barges and lighters, are primarily or substantially engaged in performing duties such as loading and unloading or custodial service which do not constitute service performed primarily as an aid in the operation of these vessels as a means of transportation and consequently are not employed as “seamen” (*McCarthy* v. *Wright & Cobb Lighterage Co.,* 163 F. (2d) 92; *Anderson* v. *Manhattan Lighterage Corp.,* 148 F. (2d) 971, certiorari denied 326 U.S. 722; *Woods Lumber Co.* v. *Tobin,* 20 Labor Cases 66, 640 (W.D. Tenn, 1951), aff'd, 199 F. (2d) 455). Whether an employee is on board a vessel primarily to perform maritime services as a seaman or loading and unloading services typical of such shore-bases personnel as longshoremen is a question of fact and can be determined only after reviewing all the facts in the particular case.
###### Editorial Note on Part 6

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 6 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 6.56 Decision of the Administrative Law Judge.

Within 15 days of receipt of the transcript, the Administrative Law Judge shall render his/her decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge shall be based upon consideration of the whole record, and shall be in accordance with the regulations and rulings contained in part 4 and other pertinent parts of this title. If any party desires review of the decision, a petition for review thereof shall be filed as provided in § 6.57 of this title, and such decision and order shall be inoperative unless and until the Administrative Review Board issues an order affirming the decision. If a petition has not been filed within 10 days of issuance of the Administrative Law Judge's decision, the Administrator shall promptly issue any wage determination which may be required as a result of the decision.
SUBJECT: Forest Road Stormwater Discharges 

FROM: Prasad Chumble

Rural Branch

Water Permits Division, 4203M

TO: The File

DATE: 5/26/16

EPA attended the Montana DEQ and USFS REGION 1 annual planning meeting on 4/12/16, and provided 

a short background and current status on the Forest Roads issue.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 149 

Expressing the condolences of the Senate on the tragic events at Virginia 

Tech University. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 16, 2007 

Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. WEBB, Mr. REID, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. 

AKAKA, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BAYH, Mr. 

BENNETT, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. BOND, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. 

BROWN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURR, Mr. BYRD, Ms. 

CANTWELL, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mrs. 

CLINTON, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COLEMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. 

CONRAD, Mr. CORKER, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. 

DEMINT, Mr. DODD, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. 

DURBIN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. 

GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. 

HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. 

JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERRY, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. KOHL, Mr. 

KYL, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. 

LIEBERMAN, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. 

MCCAIN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. REED, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. 

SHELBY, Mr. SMITH, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SPECTER, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. 

STEVENS, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. TESTER, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. 

VITTER, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. WYDEN) submitted 

the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the condolences of the Senate on the tragic events 

at Virginia Tech University. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

SRES 149 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) offers its heartfelt condolences to the vic3 tims and their families, and to students, faculty, ad4 ministration and staff and their families who have 

5 been deeply affected by the tragic events that oc6 curred today at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Vir7 ginia; 

8 (2) expresses its hope that today’s losses will 

9 lead to a shared national commitment to take steps 

10 that will help our communities prevent such trage11 dies from occurring in the future; and 

12 (3) recognizes that Virginia Tech has served as 

13 an exemplary institution of teaching, learning, and 

14 research for well over a century; and that the Uni15 versity’s historic and proud traditions will carry on. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### Grimme *vs*Commonwealth.

*April*9.

Error to the Franklin Circuit.

*Retailing Spirits.*

A presentment for retailing spirits, without designating that it was done in any other place than in the county, is not good.

Judge Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only question in this case is, whether a presentment for selling spirituous liquors by retail, with no other designation of place but the county, is good. We think it is not, For first, in the description of the offence contained in the various statutes, place is always introduced as a part of the definition; as in the 4th section of the act of 1793, (Stat.Lauj, 1499,) if any person shall sell, &c. in any house, booth, arbor, &c.; and in the 5th section of the act of 1820, page 1502, any person who shall sell, &e. in any booth, arbor, &e. So that if the place did not affect the grade of the offence, it might still be material to its proper specification. But second, there is a difference in the penalty inflicted for selling by retail in different places. The first of the sections above referred to, subjects the offence of selling in the places therein referred to, to a penalty of £3 or $10. The second imposes a penalty of twenty dollars. Upon comparing them it is seen that the last does not enumerate *264all the places mentioned in the first, and the consequence is, that for selling in any place embraced in the first and not in the second of the sections, the penalty is $10, while for selling in any of the places mentioned in the other, it is §20, so that there is a substantial ground of discrimination; and os the last statute, in effect, repeals the first as to the places named in the last, the designation of place in the presentment, is necessary, in order to show under what statute the offence is charged, and to what penally it is subject.

*Hewill*for plaintiff: *Cales, Attorney General,*for Commonwealth.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7303
MAURICE PRESTON SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUSSEX I STATE PRISON; SERGEANT WILSON; SERGEANT RUFFIN; SERGEANT JACKSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CARTER; NURSE HART; NURSE STEM; LIEUTENANT RIDDICK; COUNSELOR VILLAR; PSYCHOLOGIST HALL; SAFETY OFFICER WEIDMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00369-jlk) Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 22, 2006 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Preston Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Maurice Preston Scott appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Scott v. Sussex I State Prison , No. 7:06-cv-00369-jlk (W.D. Va. July 6, 2006). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from registrant's
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         2386719
<SECURITIES>                                    300000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2761596
<ALLOWANCES>                                    414276
<INVENTORY>                                     702615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5979130
<PP&E>                                         1702527
<DEPRECIATION>                                  898387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6984417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           770681
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        295899
<OTHER-SE>                                     5813337
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6984417
<SALES>                                       13769007
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              13769007
<CGS>                                          7718708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7718708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4202927
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               69278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1879330
<INCOME-TAX>                                    672050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1207280
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1207280
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
IIA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 41 

Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese 

Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2008 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. 

ALLARD, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURR, Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. 

CLINTON, Mr. COLEMAN, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. 

FEINGOLD, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MENENDEZ, 

Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SMITH, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. BINGAMAN, and Mr. BROWN) introduced 

the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in 

the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress approves the renewal of the import restric4 tions contained in section 3(a)(1) of the Burmese Freedom 

5 and Democracy Act of 2003. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
(81 South. 184)

#### BROOKS v. STATE.

(4 Div. 591.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 4, 1919.)

Criminal Law <&wkey;995(4) — Sentence — Payment oe Costs.

Where accused was sentenced to hard labor for a specified term and also to a sufficient additional number of days at 75 cents a day to pay the costs, the sentence for costs was erroneous in not specifying the number of days, as required by Code 1907, § 7635.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; J. S. Williams, Judge.

Ezekiel Brooks, alias Zeke Brooks, was convicted of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment, and he appeals.

Judgment of conviction affirmed, sentence set aside and annulled, and cause remanded for proper sentence.

Emmett S. Thigpen, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The record and proceedings of the trial court appear to be regular in all things and free from error, up to and including the judgment of conviction. The judgment of sentence is in these words:

> “It is therefore considered and adjudged by the court, and it is the judgment and sentence of the court, that the defendant, Ezekiel Brooks, alias Zeke Brooks, be and he is hereby sentenced to hard labor for Dale County for a term of 18 months, and also to a sufficient additional number of days at 75 cents a day to pay the costs of this prosecution.”

This sentence is erroneous In not specifying the number of days as required by the statute. Barrentine v. State, 3 Ala. App. 188, 57 South. 1025; Code 1907, § 7635; William Duff, alias, etc., v. State, 81 South, 893.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed, thie sentence is set aside and annulled, and the cause remanded to the trial court for proper sentence.

Judgment of conviction affirmed; sentence set aside and annulled; remanded fpr proper sentence.