alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134963 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134963 

 COA: 277786 

Wayne CC: 99-005606-01 

DENNIS MATHIS 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2007 

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). 

d1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

January 8, 2008 

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                   2,160,706,000
<SECURITIES>                               229,859,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              441,013,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (88,016,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           242,573,000
<PP&E>                                   7,728,757,000
<DEPRECIATION>                          (1,048,611,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          15,591,211,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,212,087,000
<BONDS>                                 10,513,065,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    1,997,611,000
<PREFERRED>                                      8,000
<COMMON>                                     1,421,000
<OTHER-SE>                               1,656,886,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            15,591,211,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           490,946,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              240,868,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           191,524,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         205,997,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (402,966,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,218,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (397,748,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (397,748,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (3.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.02)


</TABLE>
§ 54.1605 Household qualification for Emergency Broadband Benefit Program. ( a ) To constitute an eligible household: ( 1 ) The household income as defined in 47 CFR 54.1600(m) must be at or below 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a household of that size; or
( 2 ) At least one member of the household must receive benefits from one of the following Federal assistance programs: Medicaid; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; Supplemental Security Income; Federal Public Housing Assistance; or Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit; or
( 3 ) At least one member of the household has applied for and been approved to receive benefits under the free and reduced price lunch program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 *et seq.*) or the school breakfast program under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773); or
( 4 ) At least one member of the household has experienced a substantial loss of income since February 29, 2020, that is documented by layoff or furlough notice, application for unemployment insurance benefits, or similar documentation or that is otherwise verifiable through the National Verifier; or
( 5 ) At least one member of the household has received a Federal Pell Grant under section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) in the current award year, if such award is verifiable through the National Verifier or the participating provider verifies eligibility under 47 CFR 54.1606(a)(2); or
( 6 ) At least one member of the household meets the eligibility criteria for a participating provider's existing low-income or COVID-19 program, subject to the requirements of 47 CFR 54.1606(a)(2); or
( 7 ) If the household is located on Tribal lands, at least one member of the household participates in one of the following Tribal-specific Federal assistance programs: Bureau of Indian Affairs general assistance; Tribally administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Head Start (only those households meeting its income qualifying standard); or the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
( b ) In addition to meeting the qualifications provided in paragraph (a) of this section, in order to constitute an eligible household, no member of the household may already be receiving an Emergency Broadband Benefit Program discount.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-06297, 333-43296, 333-56284, 333-59379, 333-62130, 333-105140, 333-106409, 333-120932 and 333-135399) of ArthroCare Corporation of our report dated February 27, 2007 relating to thefinancial statements and financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Austin, TX

February 27, 2007
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer of


Commercial National Financial Corporation


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 annual report on Form 10-K of Commercial National Financial Corporation (the “Corporation”) for the period ending December 31, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Gregg E. Hunter, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Commercial National Financial Corporation.








/s/ Gregg E. HunterGregg E. HunterChief Executive OfficerMarch 29, 2011








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Commercial National Financial Corporation and will be retained by Commercial National Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 11-5694.

#### A. M. *v.*Mental Health Board of the 11th Judicial District.

Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS


      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IKONICS
Corporation.

Date:  May 14, 2007                    /s/ William C. Ulland
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       William C. Ulland
                                       Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,
                                       and President

Date:  May 14, 2007                    /s/ Jon Gerlach
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Jon Gerlach
                                       Chief Financial Officer,
                                       and Vice President of Finance
#### § 76.1716 Subscriber records and public inspection file.

The operator of a cable television system shall make the system, its public inspection file, and its records of subscribers available for inspection upon request by an authorized representative of the Commission at any reasonable hour.
§ 73.504 Channel assignments in the Mexican border area. ( a ) NCE-FM stations within 199 miles (320 km) of the United States-Mexican border shall comply with the separation requirements and other provisions of the “Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Concerning Frequency Modulation Broadcasting in the 88 to 108 MHz Band” as amended.
( b ) Applicants for noncommercial educational FM stations within 199 miles (320 km) of the United States-Mexican border shall propose at least Class A minimum facilities (see § 73.211(a)). However, existing Class D noncommercial educational stations may apply to change frequency within the educational portion of the FM band in accordance with the requirements set forth in § 73.512.
( c ) Section 73.208 of this chapter shall be complied with as to the determination of reference points and distance computations used in applications for new or changed facilities. However, if it is necessary to consider a Mexican channel assignment or authorization, the computation of distance will be determined as follows: if a transmitter site has been established, on the basis of the coordinates of the site; if a transmitter site has not been established, on the basis of the reference coordinates of the community, town, or city.
[52 FR 43765, Nov. 16, 1987]
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-3149 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-014-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 out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Define the date of 

manufacture 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 91 $7,735.00

Removal and 

replacement of one 

O2 generator

1.0 $ 85.00 1000 $1,085.00 91 $98,735.00

$ 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

It is unknown how 

many O2 

generators will 

require replacement

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $106,470

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product
Replacement: worst 

case when a 

maximum quantity 

generator to be 

replaced in the 

airplane.

440.0 $37,400.00 $440,000 $477,400.00

$ 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 Flexibility Act:

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

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

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

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

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
# Comments on: 21-114: In Re SK HYNIX INC.                  [ORDER], Nonprecedential
<PAGE>



                                                          EXHIBIT 10.50

                  Amendment, dated as of February 12, 1997, to employment
agreement dated as of January 21, 1994 between Celadon Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Stephen Russell (the "Employee") (the "Employment Agreement").

                  The parties wish to amend section 3(b) of the Employment
Agreement as set forth below. Accordingly, the parties agree as follows:

                  1.  The following sentence is added, immediately after the
first sentence of section 3(b) of the Employment Agreement:

                  "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the preceding
                  sentence, the Employee shall be entitled to receive, for the
                  fiscal year during the Employment Period ending June 30, 1997,
                  an incentive bonus, subject to such withholding of taxes and
                  other amounts that may be required by law, equal to 5% of the
                  Company's consolidated net income before income taxes and
                  before deduction for any bonus payable under this Agreement in
                  excess of $3 million, as determined in accordance with
                  generally accepted accounting principles at the end of that
                  fiscal year."

                  2. The Employment Agreement, as so amended, shall remain in
 full force and effect.

                  3. This amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but both of which together shall constitute
the same agreement.

                                             CELADON GROUP, INC.

                                             By:  /s/ Joel E. Smilow
                                             ----------------------------
                                                  Name:   Joel E. Smilow
                                                  Title:  Chairman
                                                          Compensation Committee

                                              EXECUTIVE:

                                              /s/ Stephen Russell
                                              ---------------------
                                              Stephen Russell

                                       91








<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4893 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4893

             To repeal the North/South Center Act of 1991.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 3, 1994

    Mr. Barca of Wisconsin (for himself, Mr. Penny, Mr. Zimmer, Ms. 
Cantwell, and Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To repeal the North/South Center Act of 1991.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NORTH/SOUTH CENTER ACT.

    Effective June 1, 1995, the North/South Center Act of 1991 (22 
U.S.C. 2075) is repealed.

                                 <all>
```
§ 301-10.401 What types of charges are reimbursable for use of a special conveyance? Actual expenses that your agency determines are necessary, including, but not limited to: ( a ) Fuel and oil;
( b ) Rental of a garage, hangar, or boathouse;
( c ) Feeding and stabling of horses;
( d ) Per diem of operator; and
( e ) Ferriage, tolls, etc.
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15955, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by 87 FR 24065, Apr. 22, 2022]
793 A.2d 713

#### ALLYSON BETH ROSENBERG D’ESOPO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CHARLES ROSENBERG, DEFENDANT, AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, A/K/A BANK OF BOSTON, F/K/A BANK OF BOSTON, F/K/A BANKBOSTON, F/K/A FLEETBOSTON, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

February 8, 2002.

ORDER

This matter having been duly considered and the Court having determined that certification was improvidently granted;

It is ORDERED that the within appeal be and hereby is dismissed.

Chief Justice PORITZ, and Justices COLEMAN, VERNIERO, and LaVECCHIA join in this Order.

Justices STEIN, LONG, and ZAZZALI would reverse the matter and remand for a new trial.
Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (SEC File Nos.333-123401 and 333-115033), and on Form S-8
(SEC File Nos. 333-108672 and 333-108673) of VendingData Corporation of our
report dated February 18, 2005 (except as otherwise noted), which appears on
page 44 of this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31,
2004.

      /s/ Piercy Bowler Taylor & Kern

      Las Vegas, Nevada
      December 21, 2005
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

GA FINANCIAL, INC.

    In connection with the Annual Report of GA Financial, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James V. Dionise,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

/s/ James V. Dionise
-----------------------
JAMES V. DIONISE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND SECRETARY
March 31, 2003
Argued and submitted February 23,

affirmed March 30, 1994

#### OREGON STATE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, *Petitioner, v.*STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent.*

(UP-38-92; CA A80480)

871 P2d 1018

Jaime B. Goldberg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Jeffrey S. Witt and Hoag, Vick, Tarantino & Garrettson.

Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, Richardson, Chief Judge, and Riggs, Judge.

RICHARDSON, C. J.

*146RICHARDSON, C. J.

Petitioner, the exclusive bargaining representative of certain state employees, filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Employment Relations Board (ERB), contending that the state had unlawfully refused to bargain over the impact of the sale of a state-owned structure in which the employees park, and had thereby unilaterally changed an employment practice. ORS 243.672(l)(e). The essence of the complaint is that the new owner of the parking facility will charge higher rates than the Department of General Services (DGS) charged when the structure belonged to the state.

ERB dismissed the complaint for two independent reasons: First, it held, the terms and rates for employees’ parking had never been an employment practice or a term or condition of employment, but had always been unilaterally set by DGS, and would continue to be unilaterally fixed by the new owner of the facility; and second, two of the three members of ERB concluded, DGS has statutory authority to operate and dispose of parking facilities, and its exercise of that authority is not subject to bargaining under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act.1

On review, petitioner’s arguments are directed only against the second basis for ERB’s conclusion, and it makes no challenge to the first. Because either ground alone supports ERB’s decision, petitioner fails to present a basis for reversal.

Affirmed.

1

 Board member Hein wrote a separate opinion, agreeing with the first ground and disagreeing with the second.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             17 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,438<F1> 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       30<F1> 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0       
<PP&E>                                              3      
<DEPRECIATION>                                      1    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,557      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0    
<BONDS>                                           415  
<COMMON>                                            0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                        240       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,557         
<SALES>                                             0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  244          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      41          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    1       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (3)      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 72       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   133       
<INCOME-TAX>                                       45      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                88     
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     3      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                       85 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0 
<FN>

<F1> THE BALANCE SHEET PRESENTED BY CASE CREDIT CORPORATION IS UNCLASSIFIED.

</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 61.172 Changes to be incorporated in tariffs of successor carrier.

When only a portion of properties is transferred to a successor carrier, that carrier must incorporate in its tariff the rates applying locally between points on the transferred portion. Moreover, the predecessor carrier must simultaneously cancel the corresponding rates from its tariffs, and reference the FCC number of the successor carrier's tariff containing the rates that will thereafter apply.