alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEATRIUS BURKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 14-cv-13331

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 21),

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 10),

AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 13)

The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied the

application of Deatrius Burks (“Burks”) for Supplemental Security Income and Disability

Insurance Benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). See

Administrative Record (“A.R.”) 41–51, ECF No. 6-2. After the SSA Appeals Council

declined to review the ruling, Burks appealed. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate

Judge Patricia T. Morris and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. See

Mot. Summ. J., ECF Nos. 10, 13. The matter was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Anthony

P. Patti, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) suggesting the Court deny

Burks’s motion and grant the Commissioner’s motion. Report, ECF No. 21.

Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 

De novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings is only required if the parties “serve and

file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(2). Because neither party filed objections, de novo review of the Report's

conclusions is not required. After reviewing the record, the Court finds that the magistrate

2:14-cv-13331-SJM-APP Doc # 22 Filed 03/03/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 863
judge’s conclusions are factually based and legally sound. Accordingly, the Court will adopt

the Report's findings, deny Burks's motion for summary judgment, and grant the

Commissioner's motion for summary judgment.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation (document no. 21) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Burks's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment

(document no. 10) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment

(document no. 13) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: March 3, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on March 3, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-13331-SJM-APP Doc # 22 Filed 03/03/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 864
# 'LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA
Cement January 15, 2008



## .JAN 1 62008 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 707 North Robinson P.O. Box 1677 

# AIRQUALITY Oklahoma City, OK 73101·1677 Attn: Mr. P. Fielder, Engineering and Permits Section Manager Air Quality Division Subject: BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) Waiver Lafarge
- Tulsa Cement Plant Dear Mr. Fielder: In response to your letterof December 12, 2007: 1. Kiln #1, Unit EP 14 was not installed in 1964, despite what is listed in the Title V permit. This is a mistake in the Title V thatwas missed during the review ofthat document. In fact, we have documentation that show that Kiln 1did start in 1961. 2. A review ofour records does not show why the PM, NOxand S02 emission rates were modeled at about 50% ofthe Title V emission limits. Ourconsultant, Trinity Consultants, is re-running the air model with the higher (Title V) values and will be submitted those results shortly. We do not expectthe result (no significant impact on any Class I areas) to be different from previous modeling. Please call me at (918) 388-1155 ifyou have any questions. Regards,

Gary Elliott Regional Environmental Manager

cc: File P.Bennett

RIVER REGION 2609 N. 145th EastAve., Tulsa, OK74166 Office: (918) 437-3902 Fax: (918) 234-7599 Web: www.lafargenorthamerica.com Printed 00 RecycleapapetS
§ 96.46 Substance abuse prevention and treatment services. ( a ) This section applies to direct funding of Indian tribes and tribal organizations under the substance abuse prevention and treatment Block Grant.
( b ) For the purpose of determining eligible applicants under section 1933(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-33(d)) an Indian tribe or tribal organization (as defined in subsections (b) and (c) of section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act) that received a direct grant under subpart I of part B of title XIX of the PHS Act (as such existed prior to October 1, 1992) in fiscal year 1991 will be considered eligible for a grant under subpart 2 of part B of title XIX of the PHS Act.
( c ) For purposes of the substance abuse prevention and treatment Block Grant, an Indian tribe or tribal organization is not required to comply with the following statutory provisions of the Public Health Service Act: 1923 (42 U.S.C. 300x-23), 1925 (42 U.S.C. 300x-25), 1926 (42 U.S.C. 300x-26), 1928 (42 U.S.C. 300x-28), 1929 (42 U.S.C. 300x-29), and 1943(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300x-53(a)(1)). An Indian tribe or tribal organization is to comply with all other statutes and regulations applicable to the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant. In each case in which an Indian Tribe receives a direct grant, the State is also responsible for providing services to Native Americans under the State's Block Grant program.
[58 FR 17070, Mar. 31, 1993]
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION  I, Jack Abramov certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of House of Taylor Jewelry, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in the report: 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors: a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: August 18, 2006 /s/   Jack Abramov Jack Abramov Chief Executive Officer
07-11-0252-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

JULY 26, 2011

______________________________

MICHAEL WAYNE PARRISH, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 21,891-B; HONORABLE JOHN B. BOARD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE, J., and BOYD, S.J.1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant, Michael Wayne Parrish, was convicted of 

assault on a public servant2and sentenced to four years confinement. The Trial Court's 

Certification of Defendant's Right to Appeal indicates that Appellant's case was a pleabargain case with no right of appeal and that Appellant waived his right of appeal.

 

1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov't Code 

Ann. § 75.002(a)(1) (West 2005).

2

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(1) (West 2011).
2

By letter dated June 30, 2011, this Court notified Appellant's appointed counsel 

of the consequences of the certification and invited him to either file an amended 

certification showing a right of appeal or demonstrate other grounds for continuing the 

appeal on or before July 15, 2011. Counsel was also notified that failure to do so might 

result in dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Counsel did not respond to this Court's notice.

Because neither an amended certification reflecting a right of appeal was filed 

nor good cause for continuing the appeal provided, this appeal is dismissed based on 

the certification signed by the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

Do not publish.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 14-13019

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On April 7, 2014, the parties informed the court in an informal communication

that Plaintiff had agreed to dismiss all remaining claims against the Toyota Defendants.

Despite an assurance that a dismissal would be forthcoming, no stipulation has thus far

been presented. Accordingly, on the strength of counsels’ representations, 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any

party may reopen this matter for any reason prior to June 30, 2015 by filing a “Notice of

Reopening,” and the case will be reinstated, with all rights and remedies preserved. 

Additionally, any time before June 30, 2015, the parties may substitute this order with

their own stipulated order of dismissal. After June 30, 2015, the dismissal will become

with prejudice. 

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 30, 2015

2:14-cv-13019-RHC-MJH Doc # 16 Filed 04/30/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 822
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, April 30, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

C:\Users\wagner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesDF63F8\14-13019.AVS.Dismissal.chd.wpd

2

2:14-cv-13019-RHC-MJH Doc # 16 Filed 04/30/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 823
Record of Contacts 

FDMS Docket No. FAA-2010-0436 

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

TCCA Richard Topham 10/16/09 Concurred. 

Bombardier Chester Liburski 10/16/09 Concurred. 

RAA Dave Lotterer 10/16/09 Concurred.
#### § 84.53 Individuals with substance and alcohol use disorders.

A recipient to which this subpart applies that operates a health care facility may not discriminate in admission or treatment against an individual with a substance or alcohol use disorder who has a medical condition, because of the person's substance or alcohol use disorder.

[89 FR 40188, May 9, 2024]
#### Peck v. Schenck.

*Bailment—pledge of bond*— *rights of pledgee.*

The father of L. gave to L. his bond for $1,400, payable after the obligor’s death. Upon the pledge of this bond plaintiff advanced L. $300, L. giving his note payable one day after date. After this L. first and then his father died, L. having failed to redeem the bond. *B.eld,*that plaintiff was entitled to recover its whole amount from the estate of the father and account to the estate of L. for the balance remaining after payment of the note of L.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.

The action was brought by Samuel Peck against Amelia Schenck, executrix, etc., of John P. Schenck, deceased, to recover the amount of a bond for $1,400, executed by the testator to his son Linneas, and which had been placed in plaintiff’s hands as security for a loan of $300.

*H. H. Hustis,*for appellant.

*J. L.*Williams, for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

The head-note states fully the only point passed upon in the opinion.

*Judgment affirmed.*
§ 309.50 What are the consequences of disapproval of a Tribal IV-D program application, plan or plan amendment? ( a ) If an application or plan submitted pursuant to § 309.15 is disapproved, the Tribe or Tribal organization will receive no funding under § 309.65(a) or this part until a new application or plan is submitted and approved.
( b ) If a IV-D plan amendment is disapproved, there is no funding for the activity proposed in the plan amendment.
( c ) A Tribe or Tribal organization whose application, plan or plan amendment has been disapproved may reapply at any time.
#### § 113.05-5 Approved equipment.

If approved equipment is required in this part, that equipment must be specifically approved by the Commandant.

Note:

Many specifications for equipment that must be approved are in Subchapter Q for this chapter.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 12-5365 September Term, 2012

1:11-cv-01841-JEB

Filed On: June 6, 2013

Wendy E. Wagner, et al.,

Appellants

v.

Federal Election Commission,

Appellee

BEFORE: Henderson and Griffith, Circuit Judges; Ginsburg, Senior Circuit 

 Judge

O R D E R

Upon consideration of appellee’s motion to recall and stay reissuance of the

mandate, it is

ORDERED that the motion be dismissed as moot. 

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Jennifer M. Clark 

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #12-5365 Document #1439961 Filed: 06/06/2013 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.1502 Fixed ballast relocation. No person may remove or relocate fixed ballast unless: ( a ) The change is approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG); or
( b ) The ballast is temporarily moved under the supervision of a Coast Guard Marine Inspector for examination or repair of the tankship.
[CGD 73-96, 42 FR 49027, Sept. 26, 1977, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
#### § 618.550 Sex as a bona fide occupational qualification.

A recipient may take action otherwise prohibited by §§ 618.500 through 618.550 provided it is shown that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for that action, such that consideration of sex with regard to such action is essential to successful operation of the employment function concerned. A recipient shall not take action pursuant to this section that is based upon alleged comparative employment characteristics or stereotyped characterizations of one or the other sex, or upon preference based on sex of the recipient, employees, students, or other persons, but nothing contained in this section shall prevent a recipient from considering an employee's sex in relation to employment in a locker room or toilet facility used only by members of one sex.
#### § 113.35-13 Mechanical engine order telegraph systems; operation.

If more than one transmitter operates a common indicator in the engineroom, all the transmitters must be mechanically interlocked and operate in synchronism. A failure of the transmission wire or chain at any transmitter must not interrupt or disable any other transmitter.
#### § 129.560 Engine-order telegraphs.

No OSV need carry an engine-order telegraph, provided the vessel meets the requirements of § 113.35-3(d) of this chapter.
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 

### ★ ▲ ▲
▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/30 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
Case 1:17-mc-01048-RBW Document 18 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:17-mc-01048-RBW Document 18 Filed 04/16/18 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Emma Bartlett.

Default opened on condition that the appellant print and serve papers in time for May Term, and pay ten dollars costs.
#### § 15.817 Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) radio operator.

Every person in the required complement of deck officers, including the master, on seagoing vessels equipped with a GMDSS, except those vessels listed in § 15.105(f) and (g) of this part, must provide evidence of a valid STCW endorsement as GMDSS radio operator.

[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78007, Dec. 24, 2013]
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed December 23, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01401-CR

LAQUINN TYRONE LOVELY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-51963-N

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Schenck, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Schenck

Before the Court is appellant’s November 22, 2019 motion to withdraw the notice of appeal 

and dismiss the appeal. The motion is signed by appellant and by counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.2(a). We GRANT the motion and DISMISS the appeal. 

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

191401F.U05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

LAQUINN TYRONE LOVELY, Appellant

No. 05-19-01401-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-51963-N.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Myers and Carlyle participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered this 23rd day of December, 2019.
§ 116.400 Application. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76701 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) This subpart applies to: ( 1 ) Vessels carrying more than 150 passengers; or
( 2 ) Vessels with overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers but not more than 150 passengers.
( b ) A vessel with overnight accommodations for more than 150 passengers must comply with § 72.05 in subchapter H of this chapter.
( c ) Vessels meeting the structural fire protection requirements of SOLAS, Chapter II-2, Regulations 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11 (incorporated by reference, see § 114.600), may be considered equivalent to the provisions of this subpart.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 900, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48269, July 22, 2016]
§ 681.16 Can the reviewing official or ALJ be disqualified? ( a ) A reviewing official or an ALJ may disqualify himself or herself at any time.
( b ) Upon motion of any party, the reviewing official or ALJ may be disqualified as follows: ( 1 ) The motion must be supported by an affidavit containing specific facts establishing that personal bias or other reason for disqualification exists, including the time and circumstances of the discovery of such facts;
( 2 ) The motion must be filed promptly after discovery of the grounds for disqualification or the objection will be deemed waived; and
( 3 ) The party, or representative of record, must certify in writing that the motion is made in good faith.
( c ) Once a motion has been filed to disqualify the reviewing official, the ALJ will halt the proceedings until resolving the matter of disqualification. If the ALJ determines that the reviewing official is disqualified, the ALJ will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. If the ALJ disqualifies himself or herself, the case will be promptly reassigned to another ALJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      9
<LEGEND>
                                  Exhibit 27
                           Financial Data Schedule

     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1999 of Cohoes Bancorp, Inc. and
subsidiary and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         9,997
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         95
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    42,354
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         57,491
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           56,625
<LOANS>                                        552,106
<ALLOWANCE>                                    4,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 677,166
<DEPOSITS>                                     454,320
<SHORT-TERM>                                   34,835
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            4,676
<LONG-TERM>                                    48,824
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       95
<OTHER-SE>                                     129,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 677,166
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                10,212
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1,537
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               4
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               11,753
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             4,145
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,114
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          6,639
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  340
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (1)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                4,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,650
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1,645
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,645
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 4.11
<LOANS-NON>                                    3,550
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               651
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                72
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               4,025
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  50
<RECOVERIES>                                   18
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              4,333
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           3,027
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        1,306



</TABLE>
#### § 122.306 Passengers excluded from operating station.

When practicable the master shall exclude passengers from the operating station of a vessel when the passengers could distract the navigating crew from their responsibilities, or when otherwise directed by the cognizant OCMI.