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.

 October 22, 2014

t1015

Order 

Clerk

October 22, 2014

Rehearing No. 602

147428

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147428

COA: 302353

Berrien CC: 2010-015309-FC

DAKOTAH WOLFGANG ELIASON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing and/or clarification is considered. 

On November 6, 2013, this Court granted the defendant’s application for leave to appeal 

limited to “(1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied Miller v Alabama, 567 US 

___ (2012), to Michigan’s sentencing scheme for first-degree murder; (2) whether that 

sentencing scheme amounts to cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16 

as applied to defendants under the age of 18; and (3) what remedy is required for 

defendants whose sentences have been found invalid under Miller or Const 1963, art 1, 

§ 16.” People v Eliason, 495 Mich 891 (2013). With regard to the other issues that were 

raised in the defendant’s application for leave to appeal but not addressed in this Court’s 

prior opinion, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. In all other respects, the motion 

for rehearing and/or clarification is DENIED.
Exhibit 32

                            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 Quarterly Report of Anaren,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended  December 31, 2008 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Lawrence A. Sala,
President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Lawrence A. Sala
-------------------------------------
Lawrence A. Sala
President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  February 9, 2009

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Anaren,  Inc. and will be retained by Anaren,  Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       32
<PAGE>

                            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 Quarterly Report of Anaren,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended  December 31, 2008 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George A. Blanton, Sr.
Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

/s/ George A. Blanton
---------------------------------------------------------
George A. Blanton
Sr. Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Date:  February 9, 2009

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Anaren,  Inc. and will be retained by Anaren,  Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       33
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3214

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Deshawn Michael Mapp, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 20, 2012

 Filed: July 2, 2012

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On February 27 and March 5, 2010, Deshawn Michael Mapp sold cocaine base

(crack cocaine) to a confidential informant. Thereafter, a grand jury returned an

indictment charging him with two counts of distribution of at least five grams of

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C.

§ 2. Mapp entered into a written plea agreement, which the district court accepted.

Before his September 29, 2011, sentencing hearing, Mapp submitted a

memoranda urging the district court to apply the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which

had taken effect on August 3, 2010. Retroactive application of the FSA and the

conforming amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines would have had
the effect of reducing Mapp’s statutory maximum term of imprisonment, see 21

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), and his offense level under the Guidelines, see U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(b). The district court denied Mapp’s request, consistent

with this court’s decision in United States v. Sidney, 648 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 2011). 

Sidney held that “the FSA is not retroactive, even as to defendants who were

sentenced after the enactment of the FSA where their criminal conduct occurred

before the enactment.” Id. at 910. 

Mapp appealed his sentence, and we held the appeal in abeyance pending the

Supreme Court’s decision in Dorsey v. United States and Hill v. United States. The

Supreme Court has now abrogated our holding in Sidney and ruled that the FSA’s

“more lenient penalty provisions apply to offenders who committed a crack cocaine

crime before August 3, 2010, but were not sentenced until after August 3.” Dorsey

v. United States, No. 11-5683, 2012 WL 2344463 (U.S. June 21, 2012). We therefore

vacate Mapp’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

______________________________

-2-
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM   Document 172-16   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024   Page 1 of 1
No. 10-11133.

#### Crockett *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 102-83.50 How is a CBSA defined?

A CBSA is defined by OMB using U.S. Census data as an area that has at its core an urban center and includes the adjacent areas that are socioeconomically tied to the urban center by commuting patterns pursuant to the *Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas,* as updated periodically and published in the Federal Register, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1104(d) and 44 U.S.C. 3504.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 855

To amend the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

relating to the dumping of dredged material in Long Island Sound,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 25, 1999

Mr. FORBES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries

Act of 1972 relating to the dumping of dredged material

in Long Island Sound, 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 ‘‘Long Island Sound

5 Preservation and Protection Act’’.
2

HR 855 IH

1 SEC. 2. DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIALS IN LONG IS2 LAND SOUND.

3 Section 106(f) of the Marine Protection, Research,

4 and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1416(f)) is

5 amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(f) DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIAL IN LONG

7 ISLAND SOUND.—

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No dredged material from

9 any Federal project, or from any non-Federal

10 project, that contains any of the constituents prohib11 ited as other than trace contaminants (as defined by

12 the Federal ocean dumping criteria set forth in sec13 tion 227.6 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regula14 tions) may be dumped in Long Island Sound or

15 Block Island Sound, except in cases in which it is

16 demonstrated to the Administrator, and the Admin17 istrator certifies by publication in the Federal Reg18 ister, that the dumping of the dredged material con19 taining such constituents will not cause significant

20 undesirable effects, including the threat associated

21 with bioaccumulation of such constituents in marine

22 organisms.

23 ‘‘(2) FEDERAL PROJECTS EXCEEDING 25,000

24 YARDS.—In addition to other provisions of law and

25 notwithstanding the specific exclusion relating to

26 dredged material in the first sentence in section
3

HR 855 IH

1 102(a), any dumping of dredged material in Long

2 Island Sound from a Federal project (or pursuant to

3 Federal authorization) by a non-Federal applicant

4 exceeding 25,000 cubic yards shall comply with the

5 criteria established pursuant to the second sentence

6 of section 102(a) relating to the effects of dumping.

7 ‘‘(3) RELATION TO OTHER LAW.—Subsection

8 (d) shall not apply to this subsection.’’.

Æ
#### ATLANTIC COAST PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Petitioner v. ANGERONA M. SAUNDERS and husband, ALGUSTUS O. SAUNDERS, JR., LUCY M. TILLETT, PATRICIA W. MOORE-PLEDGER, GENEVIVE M. GOODMAN, LYNETTE C. WINSLOW, and CARLTON RAY WINSLOW, Respondents

No. 365A15

Filed 15 April 2016

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,_N.C. App._, 777 S.E.2d 292 (2015), reversing and remanding an order entered on 29 May 2014 by Judge J. Carlton Cole in Superior Court, Currituck County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 21 March 2016.

*Homthal, Riley, Ellis & Maland, LLP, by M. H. Hood Ellis, for petitioner-appellee.*

*Vandeventer Black LLP, by Norman W. Shearin, for respondent-appellants.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
01/28/2010 17:01 FAX 2024835142 FAA "' OMS 14/001/004**~** 

### '-' FLYING SERVICE

January 22, 2010

Federal Aviatiol1**Admini~tf'd.tion** 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, 1).c. 20591 ATIN: Hearing DocketClerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building

- Suite 2WI 000 In the Matl(;f orCentraJ Flying Service, Inc. Docket No. CP " ()
. FAA EIR No. 2009SWllOOl1 

# vy/o5 I!J{J!O/ Deal' Sir or Mad,tm: Enclosed Clre the odginal an<.1**~mc** copy of

### the Answer to the 

### A.!'!1ended Complaint. ill the 

### above-referenced proceeding. We request that the Hearing bt: held in Little Rock, Arkansas. Further, we request thm the Hearing 110tbe scheduled to occur in the month ofMarch 2010. Sincerely, CENTRAL FLYING SERVICE, INC.

Richard N. Holbert Prc:;ident

1501 Bond Street • Little Rock, Arkansas 72202. • 501 -375-3245 • Fa)( 501 -375-72:'401/28/2010 11:01 FAX 2024935142 FAA -+ DMS I4J 002/004



### In the Matter of: Central Flying Service, Inc. 

### FAA Case 

### No. 2009SW11001] Docket

### No. ANSWER 

### The Respondent 

### files its Answer to the Amended Complaint and states the lo11owing: SectionTI. Paragraph 1. -Admitted Paragraph 2. Admitted Paragraph 3.

- Admitted Paragraph 4.

- Admitted Paragrapb 5. Admitted w Paragraph 6. Admitted Paragraph 7.

- Admitted Paragraph 8.

- Admitted Paragraph 9.

- Admitted Paragraph 10.-Admitted Paragraph 11.-Admitted Paragraph 12

- Admitted SectionllI. Paragraph 1. - Denied Paragraph 2. •**Deni~d** Respondent respectfully asserts that FAA personnel improperly failed to accept a Voluntary Disclosure proffered by Central personnel. Further> Respondent asserts that FAApersonne1 failed to 

### tollow guidance contained inFAA Order 2150.3B 

### inassessing the Civi1 Penalty.01/2B/2010 17:01 FAX 2024935142 FAA**~** OMS 141 003/004

Respondent respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter arl orderthat Respondent> Central Flying Service, Inc.> is relieved ofany civil penalty inthis 

### matter. Submitted this 22nd 

### day of

### Janumy, 2010.

By:

# ~~, --'--"

# ~"-- Richard N. Holbert President 

### Central Flying Service, 

### Inc. 1501 Bond 

### Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone: 501-975-9308 Fax: 501-375-7274 

### Richard.holben@ccntral.aero-----------------------------------.------­ 01/2B/2010 17:01 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 141 004/004



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that an original and a copy ofthe fbregoing Answer

## to the Am.en.ciec! Complaint have been mailed this date by Certified Mail, Return ReceiptRequested, to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington. D.C. 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building

- Suite 2WIOOO And a copy ofthe Answer to the Amended Complainthas been mailedby the same means to: Stellamaris Williams, 

### Esq. Safety Enforcement Branch Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Region 2601 Meacham Blvd FortWorth,Texas 76193·0007

RichardN. Holbert President Central Flying Service, Inc; 1501 Bond Avenue Little Rock. Arkansas 72202
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM 

GRACE, INC.; ENGAGE MIAMI, INC.; 

SOUTH DADE BRANCH OF THE NAACP; 

MIAMI-DADE BRACH OF THE NAACP; 

CLARICE COOPER; YANELIS VALDES; 

JARED JOHNSON; and ALEXANDER 

CONTRERAS, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF MIAMI, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY 

IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendant City of Miami’s Motion for 

Leave to File Reply In Support of Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations 

[55] and the Court having reviewed the file, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it 

is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Motion is hereby GRANTED; 

2. Defendant shall file a Reply on May 19, 2023. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Miami, Florida this ___ day of May, 2023. 

 _____________________________ 

 K. MICHAEL MOORE 

 United States District Judge 

Copies furnished to all counsel of record 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 58-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2023 Page 1 of 1
1

For Busy Feds: Boost Your Feedback Skills and 

See Powerful Results

Federal ADR Lunchtime Series - March 28, 2018

Activity Worksheet: Conversational Intelligence

Noradrenaline 

Adrenaline

Cortisol

Oxytocin

Dopamine

Seratonin

GABA
2

For Busy Feds: Boost Your Feedback Skills and 

See Powerful Results

Federal ADR Lunchtime Series - March 28, 2018

1. You are just not cutting it. 2. I trust you.

3. You don’t get it, do you? 4. What would you like to know more 

about?

5. Let’s create a sense of excitement 

around it and see what emerges.

6. What could be so hard about that?

7. Yes, but... 8. It’s none of your business.

9. Let’s see how we can... 10. This is a waste of time.

11. Imagine if we could... 12. What if we tried it this way?

13. So far, I haven’t heard anything 

worthwhile.

14. What good is that?

15. Let’s team up and see what we can 

do.

16. Yes, and...

17. We need your original thinking on 

this.

18. You’ll never get it past my boss.

19. There’s no way this will fly here. 20. How about suspending judgment 

so we can see where this will go?

21. There’s no risk in talking about it! 22. It’s just a waste of time.

23. If we “pilot” it and it doesn’t work, 

we don’t have to adopt it.

24. You’ve never done it yet.

25. What an achievement – and we 

just started.

26. Why start? It will be a catastrophe.
3

For Busy Feds: Boost Your Feedback Skills and 

See Powerful Results

Federal ADR Lunchtime Series - March 28, 2018

Activity Worksheet: Paper Tear
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 32

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/08

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 08 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
#### § 302-6.28 Are temporary quarters lodging taxes and laundry/dry cleaning expenses included in the TQSE amount?

Temporary quarters lodging taxes are not included in your daily temporary quarters lodging rate and may be documented as a separate TQSE-LP or TQSE-AE miscellaneous expense. Lodging taxes for TQSE-LS are included in your overall lump sum amount. Laundry/dry cleaning expenses are included in your incidental portion of the daily M&IE allowance and are not separately reimbursed.
#### § 0.413 The Commission's printed publications.

The Commission's printed publications are described in §§ 0.414 through 0.420. These publications may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

[64 FR 60722, Nov. 8, 1999]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 31, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), CommerceNet Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Wyzdom Solutions, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Woodside Labs, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Enigma, Inc., Burlington, MA; Electron Economy, Cupertino, CA; and RAM Consulting Services, Poolesville, MD have joined the Consortium as Portfolio members.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CommerceNet Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 13, 1994, CommerceNet Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 31, 1994 (59 FR 45012).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 4, 2000. A notice has not yet been published in the                     **Federal Register.**

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-16476 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Exhibit 21

                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

Subsidiary of Registrant

1.  Iron Mountain Records Management, Inc.
    (in California, also does business as Metro Records Management)
    State of incorporation -- Delaware

Subsidiaries of Iron Mountain Records Management, Inc.

1.  Metro Business Archives, Inc. (doing business at Metro Business Archives)
    State of incorporation -- New York

2.  Criterion Atlantic Property, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Delaware

3.  Criterion Property, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Delaware

4.  Hollywood Property, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- California

5.  IM San Diego, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Delaware

6.  Iron Mountain Consulting Services, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Delaware

7.  Iron Mountain Data Protection Services, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Massachusetts

8.  Iron Mountain Records Management of Maryland, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Delaware

9.  Iron Mountain Records Management of Ohio, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Delaware

10. Iron Mountain Wilmington, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Delaware

11. Iron Mountain Records Management of Missouri LLC
    State of organization -- Delaware

12. Iron Mountain Records Management of Boston, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Massachusetts

13. Data Archive Services, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Delaware

14. Iron Mountain Records Management of Minnesota, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Delaware

15. Iron Mountain Records Management of Michigan, Inc.
    State of incorporation -- Delaware