alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DERRICK EDWARDS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 308 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of January, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

(1) Does the reasoning and rationale contained within this Honorable Court’s recent decision (May 19, 2020) in

Commonwealth v. [] Johnson , [231 A.3d 807 (Pa. 2020)], apply to a Batson violation, thereby precluding a retrial based upon double jeopardy principles?
#### § 196.15-35 Emergency training, musters, and drills.

Onboard training, musters, and drills must be in accordance with subchapter W (Lifesaving Appliances and Arrangements) of this chapter.

[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25313, May 20, 1996]
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Robert D. Parks, the Chief Executive Officer of Inland Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (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/ ROBERT D. PARKS    
|--- | -----------------------
|    |                        
|By: | Robert D. Parks        
|    | Chief Executive Officer
|    | Date: November 7, 2004
NUMBER 13-16-00018-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ESHELLE SAENZ, Appellant,

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 94th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court regarding the preparation of the reporter’s record in 

this cause. Appellant’s counsel has failed to request a reporter’s record. The reporter 

was advised that the appellant no longer wished to pursue the appeal but a motion to 

dismiss has not been filed with this Court.
2

This sequence of events requires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further 

delay and to preserve the parties' rights. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(a)(1). Accordingly, 

this appeal is ABATED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court.

Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be given 

and conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant has abandoned her appeal. If it 

is determined that appellant has not abandoned her appeal, the court shall further 

determine if appellant’s attorney of record continues to represent appellant and will 

diligently pursue this appeal. 

The court shall further determine if the reporter's record, or any part thereof, has 

been lost or destroyed, and shall make appropriate findings under Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f), 

if necessary. Otherwise, the court shall determine what steps are necessary to ensure 

the prompt preparation of a reporter's record, and shall enter any orders required to avoid 

further delay and to preserve the parties' rights. 

The trial court shall prepare and file its findings and orders and cause them to be 

included in a supplemental clerk's record which should be submitted to the Clerk of this 

Court within thirty days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed this the

27th day of May, 2016.
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.112-4 Approval procedures. ( a ) Manufacturers that desire type approval should submit a written notice to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4) describing the product and its intended uses. The Commandant will evaluate this information and notify the manufacturer of the product's suitability for testing. The manufacturer should then contract directly with an accepted independent laboratory to perform the required tests and inspections.
( b ) Upon completion of the required testing and inspections, the manufacturer must submit either a written request for type approval to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4), United States Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, or electronically submit a request to *typeapproval@uscg.mil*. The request must indicate the name and address of the manufacturer, all product designations, and the address of all manufacturing facilities. The request must include a copy of the final fire test report and the production inspection procedures. From the information submitted, the Commandant determines whether or not the product is acceptable for type approval. If the product is determined to be acceptable, a type approval certificate valid for a 5-year period will be issued. If the product is not accepted, the manufacturer will be notified of the reasons why.
Case 5:15-cr-20009-MAG-MKM ECF No. 33 filed 10/28/19 PageID.102 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:15-cr-20009-MAG-MKM ECF No. 33 filed 10/28/19 PageID.103 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:15-cr-20009-MAG-MKM ECF No. 33 filed 10/28/19 PageID.104 Page 3 of 3
# **Exhibit 23.1**

#  

# CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

#  

To the Board of Directors

Northern California Bancorp Inc.

Monterey, California

 

 

We herebyconsent to the use in the 10-KSB for the Northern California Bancorp Inc. ofour report dated February 9, 2006 relating to the financial statements of theNorthern California Bancorp Inc. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and for thethree years then ended.

 

 
| /s/ Hutchinson and Bloodgood, LLP |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|
| Watsonville, California           |
| March 22, 2006                    |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                  0
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        0
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                120,397,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   0
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                               22
<OTHER-SE>                    120,397,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  120,397,872
<SALES>                        29,948,645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               29,948,645
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                29,948,645
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            29,948,645
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   29,948,645
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        


</TABLE>
Amendment No. 6 to the Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Restated 1988 Nonqualified Stoc



 EXHIBIT 10.27.6 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. SIX TO THE 
 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 
 1988 NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 (Restated as of January 22, 1998) 
  
 WHEREAS, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), maintains the Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 1988 Nonqualified
Stock Option Plan, as restated as of January 22, 1998 (the “Plan”); 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17 of the Plan, the Company has reserved the power to amend the Plan; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to allow the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, (i) to accelerate the period during which
options granted under the Plan shall become exercisable, (ii) to provide that options granted under the Plan shall continue to become exercisable following a termination of employment with the Company and (iii) to extend the period during which
options granted under the Plan shall remain exercisable following a termination of employment with the Company. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 17 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the date
hereof: 
  
 1. Section 9 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding
the following at the end thereof: 
  
 The Committee may, in its
sole discretion and for any reason at any time, take action such that (i) any or all outstanding options shall become exercisable in part or in full, (ii) any or all outstanding options shall continue to become exercisable in part or in full
following termination of an optionee’s employment with the Company or a subsidiary for any reason specified by the Committee and (iii) any or all outstanding options shall remain exercisable in part or in full following termination of an
optionee’s employment with the Company or a subsidiary for any reason specified by the Committee. 
  









 2. The second sentence of Section 12 of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 
  
 Except as may otherwise be provided by the Committee in its sole discretion
on or after the date on which an option is granted hereunder, a termination of the employment relationship for any reason other than those so provided in Section 2(C)(i), (ii) and (iii) shall act to terminate an option grant as of the effective date
of such termination of the employment relationship, as reflected in the records of the Company. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer this 19th day of January, 2005. 

 

			
	 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ J. Patrick Gallagher, Jr.

	 	 	 J. Patrick Gallagher, Jr. President



  

 2
§ 183.354 Battery installations. ( a ) *Large batteries.* Each large battery installation must be located in a locker, room or enclosed box solely dedicated to the storage of batteries. Ventilation must be provided in accordance with § 111.15-10 in subchapter J of this chapter. Electrical equipment located within the battery enclosure must be approved by an independent laboratory for Class I, Division 1, Group B hazardous locations and meet § 111.105 in subchapter J of this chapter.
( b ) *Small batteries.* Each small battery installation must be located in a well ventilated space and protected from falling objects. A small battery installation must not be in a closet, storeroom or similar space.
\.. ..i sJ 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 20-0279 

DANA ROLAN, on her own behalf 

and on behalf of the class she represents, 

Plaintiffs, Counter-Defendants, and Appellees, 

v. 

NEW WEST HEALTH SERVICES, 

Defendant and Appellee, 

DARWIN SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY 

and ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY 

and DARWIN NATIONAL ASSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant, Counter-Claimant, and Appellant. 

J 

MAR 0 8 2022 

Bowerl Ureenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

Rtato exf NAnntana 

ORDER 

On January 4, 2022, we issued an Opinion in the above-entitled action, reversing 

the District Court's holding that Allied is estopped from asserting the $1 million 

"each Claim" limit of liability, remanding for the District Court to consider whether the 

$1 million limit applied, and affirming the District Court's holding that Allied's "Loss" 

provision does not preclude Allied's indemnity obligation of the class's damages. On 

January 18, 2022, Rolan filed a Petition for Rehearing. 

M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a) provides that a petition for rehearing will be considered only 

when the Court "overlooked some fact material to the decision," when "it overlooked some 

question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case," or when 

"its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by the Court. 

Having fully considered Rolan's petition, we conclude a rehearing is not warranted 

under the standards of M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. 

03/08/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0279
The Clerk of Coultis,_ directed to mail copies of this Order to all counsel of record. 

DATED this day of March, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

Justices 

2
#### The People of the State of New York *v.*The City Bank of Rochester.—(Matter of Sartwell and others, *Appellants, v.*Hobert F. Atkinson, *Receiver, etc.,*Respondent.)

Order affirmed,, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Mem. by

Learned, P. J.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the
"Form 10-QSB") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").

      I, Jose' A. Infante, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Issuer, certify that:

      (i)   the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
            U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

      (ii)  the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

Dated: November 15, 2004

                                /s/Jose' A. Infante
                                ------------------------------
                                Jose' A. Infante
                                Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending December 3, 2005

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
###### 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.

#### § 154.150 Examination required for a Certificate of Compliance.

Before a vessel receives an initial or reissued Certificate of Compliance endorsed with the name of a cargo from Table 4 of this part, the vessel must call at a United States port for an examination, during which the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, determines whether or not the vessel meets the requirements of this chapter.

[CGD 81-052, 50 FR 8734, Mar. 5, 1985]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IWONA W. PIEKARZ, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-10689

v.

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 20)

AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 15)

AND

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 17)

AND

REMANDING MATTER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

I.

This is a social security case. Plaintiff Iwona Piekarz appeals from the final

determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) that she is not

disabled and therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The matter was

referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff and the

Commissioner filed cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff requested that the

Commissioner’s decision either be reversed or remanded to the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) for further proceedings. 

The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR),

recommending that plaintiff’s motion be granted, the Commissioner’s motion be denied,

2:15-cv-10689-AC-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 01/07/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 889
and the matter remanded under sentence four1

 for further administrative proceedings. 

(Doc. 20) 

II.

Neither party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections

has passed. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any

further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d

1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's

report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate

judge. Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED

as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with

the MJRR. 

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

Dated: January 7, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Detroit, Michigan

1

 “A district court's authority to remand a case for further administrative

proceedings is found in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Hollon v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d 477,

482-83 (6th Cir. 2006). The statute permits only two types of remand: a sentence four

(post-judgment) remand made in connection with a judgment affirming, modifying, or

reversing the Commissioner's decision; and a sentence six (pre-judgment) remand

where the court makes no substantive ruling as to the correctness of the

Commissioner's decision. Hollon, 447 F.3d at 486 (citing Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501

U.S. 89, 99-100, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991)). 

2

2:15-cv-10689-AC-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 01/07/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 890
#### § 169.847 Lookouts.

Nothing in this part exonerates any master or officer of the watch from the consequences of any neglect to keep a proper lookout.
#### Maria Lucrecia De Rivas and others, *Appellants, v.*Ana Rivas De Herques, *Respondent*.

Order modified as directed in opinion, without costs of appeal. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MELVIN BOWENS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM

Hon. Laurie J. Michelson

HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF ECF NOs. 281 and 282

Counsel for Plaintiffs, after either written to or having a conversation with each of 

the filers of ECF Nos 281 and 282, files this Notice to withdraw both documents 

that were filed as pro se pleadings.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel E. Manville (P39731)

Director, Civil Rights Clinic

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs

Michigan State University College of Law

648 N. Shaw Lane

East Lansing, MI 48824

(517) 432-6866

Daniel.manville@law.msu.cdu

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I declare under penalty of perjury that this document was filed by ECF with the 

Court and sent to Defendants’ counsel.

/s/ Daniel Manville

Daniel.manville@law.msu.cdu

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 288 filed 01/15/20 PageID.7473 Page 1 of 1
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Business Board (DBB) will meet in open session on Thursday, April 26th at the Pentagon, Washington, DC, from 8:05 a.m. to 8:50 a.m. The mission of the DBB is to advise the Secretary of Defense on effective strategies for implementation of best business practices of interest to the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Board will deliberate on findings from three task groups: Task Group on Review of Prior DBB Supply Chain Reports, Task Group on Tooth-to-Tail Analysis, and Task Group on Developing a Framework for Analyzing Executive Level Compensation. Copies of DRAFT Task Group presentations will be made available on April 18th by contacting the DBB Office. Members of the public who wish to provide input to the board should submit written comments by 5 p.m., Monday, April 23rd to allow time for distribution to the Board members prior to the meeting. Additionally, those who wish to attend the meeting must contact the Defense Business Board no later than Noon on Monday, April 23rd, for further information about escort arrangements in the Pentagon.

# DATES:

Thursday, April 26th, 8:05 a.m. to 8:50 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C288, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C288, Washington, DC 20301-1155, via e-mail at                         *defensebusinessboard2@osd.mil*                         or via phone at (703) 697-2168.                    

Dated: March 30, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.

[FR Doc. 07-1672 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M