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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth 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.

 May 27, 2015

t0520

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2015

150541

ALEXANDRA PEW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 150541

COA: 317727 

Ct of Claims: 12-000157-MZ

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2014 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Meeting with Representative from the American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA)

Attendees:

Robert Courtnage (EPA)

Rebecca Edelstein (EPA)

Sara Kemme (EPA)

Bill Purdue (VP Regulatory Affairs, AHFA)

On June 21, 2013, Bill Purdue from the American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA) met with 

EPA staff to discuss the proposed rule on Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite 

Wood Products. He specifically wanted to discuss the proposed definitions of laminated 

products and hardwood plywood and the implications of those definitions. He asked for some 

clarity regarding the definitions and expressed some concerns about the implications of the 

definitions. EPA staff encouraged him to submit his questions, concerns, and recommendations 

to the public docket in regulations.gov so that EPA can carefully consider his comments and 

respond to them in the final rule.
Order entered June 4, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00311 - CV BYRON CURTIS COOK, Appellant

V. KEVIN KYSER AND CHRI STOPHER COWMAN, Appellee s On Appeal fr om the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 417 - 03417 - 2018



### O RDER Before the Court is appellees’ May 28, 2019 unopposed first motion for extension of time to file their brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellees’ b rief due on or before June 17, 2019

.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
§ 20.206 Separation of functions. ( a ) No ALJ may be responsible to, or supervised or directed by, an officer, employee, or agent who investigates for or represents the Coast Guard.
( b ) No officer, employee, or agent of the Coast Guard who investigates for or represents the Coast Guard in connection with any administrative proceeding may, in that proceeding or one factually related, participate or advise in the decision of the ALJ or of the Commandant in an appeal, except as a witness or counsel in the proceeding or the appeal.
# Jurnalul Oficial C 427I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-1029 |
| --- | --- |
| Jurnalul Oficial
  al Uniunii Europene | C 427I |
| | |
| Ediţia în limba română | Comunicări şi informări | Anul 6219 decembrie 2019 |

ISSN 1977-1029

Jurnalul Oficial

al Uniunii Europene

C 427I

Ediţia în limba română

Comunicări şi informări

Anul 6219 decembrie 2019

---

| Cuprins | Pagina |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Anunțuri |
| | PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE |
| | Comisia Europeană |
| 2019/C 427 I/01 | Apel la candidaturi pentru Premiul Jan Amos Comenius pentru excelență în predarea cu privire la Uniunea Europeană | 1 |

Cuprins

Pagina

V   Anunțuri

PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE

Comisia Europeană

2019/C 427 I/01

Apel la candidaturi pentru Premiul Jan Amos Comenius pentru excelență în predarea cu privire la Uniunea Europeană

1

---

| RO | |
| --- | --- |

RO

---

V Anunțuri

PROCEDURI ADMINISTRATIVE

Comisia Europeană

| 19.12.2019 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | CI 427/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2019

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

CI 427/1

---

Apel la candidaturi

pentru „Premiul Jan Amos Comenius pentru excelență în predarea cu privire la Uniunea Europeană”

(2019/C 427 I/01)

Direcția Generală Educație, Tineret, Sport și Cultură a Comisiei Europene a lansat o invitație de depunere a candidaturilor pentru „Premiul Jan Amos Comenius pentru excelență în predarea cu privire la Uniunea Europeană”.

Acest premiu va recompensa unitățile de învățământ secundar care îi ajută pe elevi să învețe despre Uniunea Europeană într-un mod care să îi inspire. El va contribui la recunoașterea și la vizibilitatea la nivelul întregii UE a activităților relevante din fiecare stat membru și va evidenția importanța predării și a învățării despre UE la o vârstă fragedă. De asemenea, va prezenta metode inovatoare de predare care îi implică în mod activ pe elevi în procesul de învățare cu privire la UE și va contribui la răspândirea acestor practici.

Invitația este deschisă unităților de învățământ secundar (nivelul ISCED 2 și nivelul ISCED 3) care sunt stabilite și își au sediul în Uniunea Europeană (nu cadrelor didactice individuale).

Acest concurs va acorda până la douăzeci și opt (28) de premii în valoare de 8 000 EUR fiecare, câte unul pentru fiecare stat membru al UE.

Dacă Regatul Unit se retrage din UE înainte de adoptarea de către Comisia Europeană a deciziei de acordare a premiilor (curând după evaluarea candidaturilor) fără un acord care să asigure eligibilitatea în continuare a candidaților din Regatul Unit, unitățile de învățământ din Regatul Unit vor înceta să mai fie eligibile. În acest caz, numărul maxim al premiilor va fi 27 (în loc de 28), însă valoarea per premiu va rămâne aceeași (8 000 EUR).

Termenul-limită pentru depunerea candidaturilor este joi, 6 februarie 2020, ora 17.00 CET.

Toate informațiile și formularele de candidatură relevante sunt disponibile la adresa:

https://ec.europa.eu/education/resources-and-tools/funding-opportunities/jan-amos-comenius-prize_en

---
§ 3020.120 Rebuttal testimony. ( a ) *Timing.* Any participant may file rebuttal testimony on or before the date established for that purpose by the procedural schedule issued by the Commission pursuant to § 3020.110. Hearing on rebuttal testimony shall proceed as set forth in the procedural schedule.
( b ) *Limitations.* The scope of rebuttal testimony shall be limited to material issues relevant to the specific proposal made by the Postal Service. Rebuttal testimony shall not propose, or seek to address, alternatives to the Postal Service's proposal.
( c ) *Intent to file rebuttal testimony.* If a participant wishes to file rebuttal testimony, it must file a document confirming its intent to file rebuttal testimony with the Commission by the date provided in the procedural schedule.
( d ) *Adjustment of dates.* If no participant files a confirmation of intent to file rebuttal testimony on or before the date established by the procedural schedule issued by the Commission pursuant to § 3020.110, the Commission may adjust other dates in the procedural schedule as it deems to be necessary and appropriate.
§ 385.11 Implementation process for projects. Generally, the Corps of Engineers and non-Federal sponsors shall develop and implement projects in accordance with the process that is shown in figure 1 in Appendix A of this part. Typical steps in this process involve: ( a ) *Project Management Plan.* The Project Management Plan describes the activities, tasks, and responsibilities that will be used to produce and deliver the products necessary to implement the project.
( b ) *Project Implementation Report.* The Project Implementation Report provides information on plan formulation and evaluation, engineering and design, estimated benefits and costs, and environmental effects to bridge the gap between the conceptual design included in the Plan and the detailed design necessary to proceed to construction. The Project Implementation Reports will also set forth additional information and analyses necessary for the Secretary of the Army or Congress to approve the project for implementation.
( c ) *Plans and specifications.* During this phase, final design of the project is completed and plans and specifications are prepared. Plans and specifications contain the information necessary to bid and construct the project.
( d ) *Real estate acquisition.* The lands, easements, and rights-of way, and relocations necessary for the project are acquired prior to construction.
( e ) *Construction.* This phase is the actual construction of a project's components and includes an interim operation and monitoring period to ensure that the project operates as designed.
( f ) *Operation.* After construction of the project has been completed, it is operated in accordance with the System Operating Manual and the Project Operating Manual.
( g ) *Monitoring and assessment.* After the project has been constructed, monitoring is conducted as necessary to assess the effectiveness of the project and to provide information that will be used for the adaptive management program.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81364-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

RAFAEL FIS and 

MARIA FIS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEWREZ, LLC, 

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 15] AND CLOSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant NewRez, LLC’s Motion to 

Dismiss Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 8]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge 

Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 14]. In the Report, Judge Reinhart

recommends dismissal of the case without prejudice for lack of Article III standing (the “Report”) 

[ECF No. 15]. Both parties have filed Notices of Non-Objection to the Report [ECF No. 16 

(Defendant); ECF No. 17 (Plaintiffs)]. 

To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file 

specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation 

to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 

(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court 

reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or 

modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, 

the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the 

Case 9:22-cv-81364-AMC Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2023 Page 1 of 2
 CASE NO. 22-81364-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

2

record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence 

of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston 

v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). 

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and the record and is otherwise 

fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. 

The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the Report and concludes that the Motion 

[ECF No. 8] should be GRANTED and the Complaint [ECF No. 1] DISMISSED for lack of 

Article III standing. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 15] is ACCEPTED. 

2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 8] is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 6th day of January 2023.

_________________________________

AILEEN M. CANNON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cv-81364-AMC Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2023 Page 2 of 2
Case 9:22-cv-81758-XXXX Document 1-15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 1 of 2
Case 9:22-cv-81758-XXXX Document 1-15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 2 of 2
[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: Atmosphericozone: assessment of our understanding of the processes controlling its presentdistribution and change.**
 
Volumes: One | Two| Three
 
SuDoc Number:NAS 1.2: OZ 7/
Item Number:0830-C (online)
CGP systemNumber:001062682
 
June 28, 2018
# **AmeriCorps Member Disability Accommodation Off Set Grant Request Form**

OverviewGrantee organizations are responsible for providing reasonable accommodations for their AmeriCorps members. The funds that AmeriCorps State and National provides toward accommodation are intended to offset a grantee’s costs and the pool of funds is awarded on a first come, first serve basis. 

Due DateRequests must be submitted by August 20, 2024. 

InstructionsPlease provide all the requested information and a receipt to ensure timely processing of your request. Requests are incomplete unless a receipt is attached.

1. Name of Grantee: 

2. Grant Number:

3. Organization Single Point of Contact Name for Request:

4. Single Point of Contact Email Address: 

5. Single Point of Contact Telephone Number:

6. Attention to and address to which the check should be remitted: **(Important note: The prime applicant must indicate knowledge and approval of the accommodation reimbursement request. All payments will be made to the prime grantee only.)**

7. Name of the subgrantee/operating site (if applicable):

8. Grant number of the subgrantee/operating site (if applicable):

9. Member National Service Participant ID (NSPID) number(s):

10. Type of Disability: 

11. Type of Accommodation:

12. Please provide a brief statement as to how the accommodation helps the member(s) achieve full participation in their service assignment(s):

13. What organization and outside community resources were consulted in securing funding for or arranging accommodation, such as coordinating with the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation? Please describe:

14. Requested Reimbursement Amount: $ 

15. Is this a one-time reimbursement request or a quarterly request for multiple reimbursements?One-time _____	Quarterly _____Please batch multiple requests into quarterly submissions with an itemized summary.

16. If this is not a one-time request and you foresee batching receipts on a quarterly basis, what is your projected cost for the fiscal year for this member (please provide cost, not a range): $___________ 

Submitting the RequestThe completed request form and receipt must be submitted via secure, encrypted email to  Accommodations@americorps.gov with organization name and the NSPID in the email subject line. 

Reimbursement ProcessReimbursement payments will be made on a first-come, first-served basis until funds are exhausted once a completed request form is submitted with attached receipts.

Last revised October 25, 2023	OMB Control No. 3045-0179	Expiration Date: 8/30/2024

# image1.jpg
38168 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA–4091a; FRL–6719–7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Withdrawal of Direct

Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment,

EPA is withdrawing a direct final rule

which announced the approval of

revisions to the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania’s State Implementation

Plan (SIP). The rule which EPA is

withdrawing announced the approval of

revisions imposing reasonably available

control technology (RACT) on twentysix major sources of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides

(NOx) located in Pennsylvania. In the

direct final rule published on April 18,

2000 (65 FR 20746), EPA stated that if

EPA received adverse comment by May

18, 2000, EPA would withdraw the rule

and it would not take effect. EPA

subsequently received an adverse

comment, as well as a separate request

for an extension of the comment period.

EPA will address the comment received

in a subsequent final action based upon

the proposed action, which was also

published on April 18, 2000 (65 FR

20788). In a document published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register, EPA is also extending the

comment period on this action. EPA

will address the adverse comment it has

received, as well as any additional

comments it may receive during the

extended comment period, in its final

action.

DATES: The direct final rule is

withdrawn as of June 19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ray Chalmers at (215) 814–2061. Mr.

Chalmers can also be contacted by mail

at the Permits and Technical

Assessment Branch, Air Protection

Division, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, or

via e-mail at chalmers.ray@epa.gov.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone.

Dated: June 13, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

Accordingly, the amendment of 40

CFR part 52, § 52.2020 to add paragraph

(c)(140) is withdrawn as of June 19,

2000.

[FR Doc. 00–15522 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

**DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

**EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES CALCULATION**

**(inthousands, except ratios)**
| ** **                                                                   | **December  31, 2006** | ** ** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------|
|                                                                         |                   |       |   |   |
| Net income from  continuing operations, less preferred distributions         | $                      | 106,924    |   |   |
| Preferred distributions                                                      |                   | 56,419     |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                             |                   | 179,007    |   |   |
| Earnings before  fixed charges                                               | $                      | 342,350    |   |   |
|                                                                         |                   |       |   |   |
|                                                                         |                   |       |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                             | $                      | 179,007    |   |   |
| Interest costs  capitalized                                                  |                   | 36,260     |   |   |
| Total fixed  charges                                                         |                   | 215,267    |   |   |
|                                                                         |                   |       |   |   |
| Preferred distributions                                                      |                   | 56,419     |   |   |
| Total fixed charges and preferred distributions                              | $                      | 271,686    |   |   |
|                                                                         |                   |       |   |   |
|                                                                         |                   |       |   |   |
| **Ratio of earnings to fixed  charges**                                      | ** **             | **1.59**   | ** ** |   |
| ** **                                                                   | ** **             | ** ** | ** ** |   |
| **Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and  preferred distributions** |                   | **1.26**   |   |   |
|                                                                              |                        |            |  |  |  |  |

 

----
#### HELEN H. VAN KEUREN, Appellant, *v.*MARGARET CORKINS AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.

*Mortgage—payment of, by mortgagor' to mortgagee after assignment, without notice.*

Payments made by a mortgagor to a mortgagee, after the latter has assigned the mortgage and parted with all his interest therein without notice of such assignment, are valid. *†*

Under some circumstances the omission of a mortgagor, when paying off his bond and mortgage, to require a delivery up of the securities, may raise a presumption that the payment was not made in good faith.‡ But no such presumption can arise where the assignee allows the mortgage to remain in the hands of the mortgagee, and permits him to receive payments of principal and interest thereon.

*130Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the trial of this action by the court without a jury.

Hulse, *Little & Finn,*for the appellant.

*E. A. Brewster,*for the respondents.

†

**Reed v. Marble, 10 Paige, 413.

‡

 Brown v. Blydenburgh, 7 N. Y., 140; Doubleday v. Kress, 50 id., 410.

Opinion by

Gilbert, J.

Present— Gilbert and Tappen, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Opinion issued July 31 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 18

- 00132

- CV

——————————— IN RE NEXTGEAR CAPIT AL, INC. , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, NextGear Capital, Inc., has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
challenging the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss based on forum

- selection

clause. 1 We deny the petition.

1 The underlying case is Alireza Delavari Maryan d/b/a Texas Financial Group v. NextGear Capital, Inc., US Financial Auto Credit, LLC, Melissa Webb Brya nt, and Saeid Hashemnezad , cause number 2017

- 63452, pending in the 151st District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Mike Engelhardt presiding.2 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Brown, and Caughey.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3067417-DEC-201208:54 AM
# 111-15
fmr X&smxor offBrn 

## ORIGINAL

Prs\ in-r- nr- «=...r..?="1!=' °' m

01 \j 

## BoBSYly^YM EmrfS) apr 27 2015 Abel Acosta, Clerk 

# 0f 3WBK* Oo^lBfiS ^*T OFCRIMINALAPPEALS C*u<S£: ^, it-Ms? f:;y oi 20;j Abel Acosta, Clem 

### tsfdiM' &t&m& smssumr 3deof>/ri,fhw3S~W fiffarL2%Zs>/sr