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 28, 2014

d1020 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2014

147291

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147291

COA: 309303

Berrien CC: 2011

- 002807

- FH

MELODY TYNETTE JONES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of May 27, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyan ce pending the decision in People v

Cunningham (Docket No. 147437). On order of the Court, the case having been decided

on June 18, 2014, 496 Mich 145 (2014), the application is again considered and, pursuant

to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leav e to appeal, we VACATE that part of the

Court of Appeals opinion regarding the Berrien Circuit Court’s assessment of court costs,

and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of that issue. On

remand, the Court of Appeals shall hold this case in abeyance pending its decision in

People v Konopka (Court of Appeals Docket No. 319913). After Konopka is decided, the

Court of Appeals shall reconsider the defendant’s issue in light of People v Cunningham

, 496 Mich 145 (2014), and Konopka

. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED,

because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed

by this Court.
# C_2012227EN.01003601.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/36

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Mocová v Commission

(Case F-41/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Discretion - Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities - Article 4 of the decision of the Director General of OLAF, of 30 June 2005, on the engagement and employment of OLAF’s temporary staff - Maximum duration of contracts of a temporary agent)

2012/C 227/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dana Mocová (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A.. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J Currall and D Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Director General of OLAF to reject the applicant’s application to extend her contract as a member of the temporary staff for the purposes of Article 2(1) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282 of 24/09/11, p. 51.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 16869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1663]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice Before Waiver With Respect to Land at Leesburg Executive 
Airport, Leesburg, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is publishing notice of proposed release from 
aeronautical use of approximately 1.39 acres of land at the Leesburg 
Executive Airport, Leesburg, Virginia to the Town of Leesburg. The 
release will facilitate the construction of the Battlefield Parkway 
that will improve access to the airport and will permit the 
construction of a standard runway safety area for Runway 17. There are 
not impacts to the Airport and the land is not needed for airport 
development as shown on the Airport Layout Plan.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Terry J. Page, Manager, 
FAA Washington Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 
210, Dulles, VA 20166.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Timothy B. Deike, Director Leesburg 
Executive Airport, at the following address: Mr. Timothy B. Deike, 
Director, Leesburg Executive Airport, 1001 Sycolin Road, SE., Leesburg, 
Virginia 20175.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Terry Page, Manager, Washington 
Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210, Dulles, VA 
20166; telephone (703) 661-1354, fax (703) 661-1370, e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bce8d9cecec592ecdddbd9fcdadddd92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80d4e5f2f2f9aed0e1e7e5c0e6e1e1aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 5, 2000, new authorizing 
legislation became effective. That bill, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 10-181 (Apr. 
5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61) (AIR 21) requires that a 30 day public notice 
must be provided before the Secretary may waive any condition imposed 
on an interest in surplus property.

    Dated: Issued in Chantilly, Virginia on March 14, 2007.
Terry J. Page,
Manager, Washington Airports District Office, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 07-1663 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT’SCONSENT**

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementsfiled on Form S-8 and Form S-3 of our report dated September 27,2010, relating to the financial statements of Evolution Petroleum Corporationand subsidiaries appearing in the Form 10-K for the period ended June 30,2010.

 
| /s/  Hein & Associates LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Hein &  Associates LLP     |   |
|                                |   |
| Houston,  Texas                     |   |
| September 27,  2010            |   |

 

 

500Dallas, Suite 2900

Houston,Texas 77002

Phone:713-850-9814

Fax:713-850-0725

www.heincpa.com

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 160.174-1 Scope.

This subpart contains construction and performance requirements, and approval tests for thermal protective aids that are designed to minimize the occurrence of or aid in the recovery from hypothermia (lowered body temperature) during long periods in a survival craft.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1684 

To preserve the rights granted under second amendment to the Constitution 

in national parks and national wildlife refuge areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 24, 2009 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. 

CHAFFETZ, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, 

Mr. FLEMING, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. 

SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mrs. 

LUMMIS, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. MANZULLO, and Mr. PUTNAM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To preserve the rights granted under second amendment 

to the Constitution in national parks and national wildlife refuge areas. 

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 ‘‘Preservation of the 

5 Second Amendment in National Parks and National Wild6 life Refuges Act’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1684 IH

1 SEC. 2. FIREARMS IN NATIONAL PARKS AND NATIONAL 

2 WILDLIFE REFUGES. 

3 Except as provided in section 930 of title 18, United 

4 States Code, a person may possess, carry, and transport 

5 concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national 

6 park area or national wildlife refuge area in accordance 

7 with the laws of the State in which the national park area 

8 or national wildlife refuge area, or that portion thereof, 

9 is located. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, 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 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.536 Cargo tank gauging and measuring connections.

Unless the outward flow from a cargo tank is less than the flow through a circular hole of 1.4 mm (0.055 in.) in diameter, cargo tank connections for gauging or measuring devices must have the excess flow, shut-off, or quick-closing shut-off valves under § 154.530 or § 154.532.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re:

DAVID LORENZO VALDIVIA, 

Debtor.

 /

Case No. 14-14429

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

This matter came before the court on appellant/plaintiff Mary A. Hauk’s November 20, 2014

appeal of the October 10, 2014 order of United States Bankruptcy Judge Thomas J. Tucker denying

her request for issuance of a revised writ of execution.

On September 26, 2014, the clerk of the bankruptcy court issued a writ of execution at Judge

Tucker’s direction, striking certain language to make it clear that the writ was directed only to the

United States Marshal, not to any state sheriff, deputy sheriff or state court officer. Plaintiff’s

attorney subsequently proposed a revised writ of execution specifically naming Michael Jones as

the state court officer to be charged with serving the writ. Judge Tucker’s October 10, 2014 order

denied the request for the proposed writ; and it is that order which Appellant appeals.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a district court

lacked authority to order a sheriff to levy on one’s property and that only a United States Marshal

could do so. Branch Banking & Trust v. Ramsey, 559 Fed. Appx. 919, 924 (11th Cir. 2014). 

Appellant has failed to cite authority to the contrary. Despite Appellant’s fears that execution of the

writ may take longer, it must be effected by the United States Marshal Service and not by

Appellant’s chosen state officer.

ORDER

5:14-cv-14429-JCO-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 35
It is hereby ORDERED that the October 10, 2014 order of the bankruptcy court is

AFFIRMED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: March 3, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record

on this date, March 3, 2015, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2

5:14-cv-14429-JCO-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 36
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 14-mj-30640

v.

STEFAN BARASLIEVSKY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER REGARDING COMPETENCY

On December 23, 2014, the defendant was charged in a criminal complaint 

with violating 18 U.S.C. §111(b) – Assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers 

or employees. Thereafter, the parties filed a joint motion for a competency 

examination. On December 24, 2014, this Court ordered defendant to undergo a 

psychiatric or psychological evaluation, pursuant to the Insanity Defense Reform 

Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241-4247, to determine his competency to stand trial. Defendant 

was committed to the custody of the Attorney General and underwent extensive inpatient mental health treatment at the Federal Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, 

and after sufficient observation and treatment, was determined competent to stand 

trial.

After considering all medical reports, statements by the government, statements

by the defendant’s attorney, and statements by the defendant himself, the Court finds by

a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant is NOT presently suffering from

a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is

2:14-mj-30640-DUTY Doc # 13 Filed 06/02/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 31
unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or

to assist properly in his defense herein.

Therefore, this matter shall proceed toward trial consistent with applicable laws and

procedures.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATEJUDGE

Date: June 2, 2015

2:14-mj-30640-DUTY Doc # 13 Filed 06/02/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 32
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of

record on June 2, 2015 electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager to the

Honorable Elizabeth A. Stafford

2:14-mj-30640-DUTY Doc # 13 Filed 06/02/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 33
# C_2011204EN.01003001.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/30

---

Action brought on 4 April 2011 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-34/11)

2011/C 204/54

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Dane, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in Grade AST 5.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 19 December 2010 in which the defendant notified the applicant that the grading of his position was held at Grade AST 5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 19 December 2010 in which the defendant notified the applicant that the grading of his position was held at Grade AST 5;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs.

---
Case 2:14-cv-14028-MFL-PJK ECF No. 39, PageID.1739 Filed 08/12/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:14-cv-14028-MFL-PJK ECF No. 39, PageID.1740 Filed 08/12/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:14-cv-14028-MFL-PJK ECF No. 39, PageID.1741 Filed 08/12/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:14-cv-14028-MFL-PJK ECF No. 39, PageID.1742 Filed 08/12/20 Page 4 of 4
#### § 142.227 Fire axe.

Each towing vessel must be equipped with at least one fire axe that is readily accessible for use from the exterior of the vessel.
#### James K. P. Sprague, *Respondent, v.*Eunice Norton (now Eunice Norton Van Vulson), *as Administratrix, etc.,*Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
§ 170.015 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish a notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .* It is also available for inspection at Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509. The material is also available from the sources listed below.
( b ) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. ( 1 ) ASTM F 1196-00, Standard Specification for Sliding Watertight Door Assemblies, 2008, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved for § 170.270.
( 2 ) ASTM F 1197-00, Standard Specification for Sliding Watertight Door Control Systems, 2007, IBR approved for § 170.270.
( c ) Military Specifications and Standards, Standardization Documents Order Desk, Building 4D, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094, *https://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ .* ( 1 ) MIL-P-21929B, Military Specification, Plastic Material, Cellular Polyurethane, Foam-in-Place, Rigid (2 Pounds per Cubic Foot), 15 January 1991, IBR approved for § 170.245.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( d ) International Maritime Organization (IMO), Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, + 44 (0)20 7735 7611, *http://www.imo.org/ .* ( 1 ) Resolution MSC.216(82), Adoption of Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, 1974, As Amended (IMO Res. MSC.216(82), Adopted on 8 December 2006, IBR approved for §§ 170.140 and 170.248.
( 2 ) Resolution MSC 267(85), Adoption of the International Code on Intact Stability, 2008 (2008 IS Code), Adopted on 4 December 2008, IBR approved for § 170.165.
[USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78082, Dec. 14, 2010, as amended by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59788, Oct. 1, 2012; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60163, Sept. 30, 2013]
#### § 167.10-1 Enforcement.

The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, is responsible for the performance of duties within the officer's jurisdiction with respect to inspection of nautical school ships.

[CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51217, Sept. 30, 1997]
#### § 172.060 Specific applicability.

This subpart applies to each U.S. tank vessel that is required to comply with 33 CFR 157.21.

[CGD 90-051, 57 FR 36246, Aug. 12, 1992]
2:14-cr-20721-AC-MKM Doc # 52 Filed 06/18/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 224
2:14-cr-20721-AC-MKM Doc # 52 Filed 06/18/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 225
#### CHARLES ZEMEL ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. THE CITY OF NEWARK, RESPONDENT.

Argued May 7, 1929

Decided May 27, 1929.

Before Justices Tbenchabd, Lloyd and Case.

Eor the petitioners, *Joseph Zemel.*

Pee Cueiam.

This is an application for a writ of *certiorari*to test the validity of an assessment, and its confirmation by the Circuit Court of Essex county, of benefits conferred on property of Charles Zemel et al., petitioners, Nos. 27 and 29 Jones street, Newark, as well as other lots, by the widening of Jones street.

The single ground on which the granting of the writ is urged is that in making the assessment the members of the board of assessment did not consider the buildings on the land. The twenty-first section of article 20 of the Municipalities act of 1917 *(Pmnph. L.*1917, *p.*378) directs that the board of assessment shall make a just and equitable assess-, ment of the benefits conferred upon any lands or real estate *517by reason of such improvement, having regard to the value of the lands and real estate benefited.

Petitioners filed an affidavit, and what purports to be a partial copy of the order confirming the report of the board, and what purports to be a copy of the opinion of the Circuit Court judge. The report of the board of assessment is not laid before us. The application was argued orally and it was contended that the members of the board of assessment were obliged, in reaching their conclusion, to take into consideration not only the land but the buildings on it. Xo brief was filed and no authority was citecl.

The affidavit of the petitioners sets forth certain extracts of the testimony taken before the Circuit Court judge. Whether there was other testimony of a contrary character either by these witnesses or by others does not appear. And in this connection we regard it as particularly significant that the report of the assessors is not laid before us. Assuming, however, that the statement of the witness which affiant recites is accepted that consideration was given to the land alone is true, the question arises whether this was an illegal method of assessment. The language of the statute is, “the benefits conferred on lands or real estate,” and also that in making their assessment they should have due regard to the lands and real estate benefited. The fact, if it be a fact, that in this instance the assessors considered the land alone does not justify us in finding that it is an illegal proceeding in the absence of proof or some showing to this court that valuation of the buildings thereon was essential to a proper assessment. Assuming, without deciding, that the act contemplated that the buildings should be taken into consideration, this does not entitle the applicants to the writ unless they show that the method pursued worked injury to them. This they have not done. They have not even suggested that they were prejudiced. The writ will be denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CLAYMONT STEEL HOLDINGS, INC.



---

CERTIFICATION OF CORPORATE OFFICERS

(Furnished Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



---

Each of the undersigned, Jeff
Bradley, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Claymont Steel Holdings, Inc. (the Company), and David Clark, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: July 23, 2007



| |  |                                    
| |  | -----------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Jeff Bradley                   
| |  | Jeff Bradley                       
| |  | Chief Executive Officerand Director





| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ David Clark        
| |  | David Clark            
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
S. H., Putative Father of A. H., a Minor

, Appellant,

v.

A.E., D.E., FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, and GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM

, Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRE S TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 866

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. David M. Gooding , Judge

. Troy Farquhar and Aaron J. Ir ving of Integrity Law, P.A., Jacksonville , for Appellant.

Michael A. Tupper of Tupper Law, P.A., Jacksonville for Appellees A.E. and D.E. ; Dwight O. Slater, Appellate Counsel, Children's Legal Services, Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee , fo r Appellee Florida Department of Children and Families ; David P. Krupski, Guardian ad Litem Program, Sanford , for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS

, ROWE

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.