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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCOTT WITZKE,

Petitioner, Civil No. 2:15-CV-12429

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SHAWN BREWER,

Respondent,

______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

THE MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS

Scott Witzke, (petitioner), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the Michigan Parole Board’s

decision to revoke his parole for several convictions. Respondent filed an

answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent also filed a

motion to seal the records. For the reasons that follow, the motion to seal

is GRANTED IN PART.

A federal court has the power to seal records when the interests of

privacy outweigh the public’s right of access to those records. See

Ashworth v. Bagley, 351 F. Supp. 2d 786, 789 (N.D. Ohio 2005)(internal

citation omitted).

1

2:15-cv-12429-DPH-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 82
In her motion to seal, respondent indicates that petitioner’s Parole

Board records contain confidential information that should not be made

available to the public. This information includes all of petitioner’s presentence investigation reports and prior mental health evaluations. This

Court agrees that this information is private and should be kept

confidential. The Court will order that these documents be sealed.

Respondent, however, has failed to show that the remaining

information contained within the Parole Board records is confidential or

should be sealed. The remaining Parole Board records are necessary for

adjudicating petitioner’s claims. This Court believes that the public and the

process would both benefit from “contemporaneous access by the public to

the records and proceedings that will inform the Court’s determination” as

to whether the Michigan Parole Board violated petitioner’s constitutional

rights by revoking petitioner’s parole. Ashworth, 351 F. Supp. 2d at 791.

2

2:15-cv-12429-DPH-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 83
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to seal [Dkt. # 10] is

GRANTED IN PART in accordance with the terms outlined in this opinion.

Respondent shall file the documents that are to be sealed separately from

the remainder of the Parole Board record.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: September 23, 2015

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

counsel of record on September 23, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-12429-DPH-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 84
EX-10.1



 




EXHIBIT 10.1





Computer Associates International, Inc.

AMENDED AND RESTATED Restricted Stock Unit Certificate,

Effective as of November 22, 2004




	 	 	 	 	 
	John A. Swainson

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Name of Participant

	 	EmplID	 	 






      



	 	 	 
	Grant Number
	 	 
	Total Number of Restricted Stock Unit Awards Granted

	 	100,000
	Grant Date

	 	November 22, 2004





This Certificate confirms the grant under the Computer Associates International, Inc. 2002
Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective as of March 31, 2004 (the “Plan”), to the
above-named participant of the amount of Restricted Stock Units set forth above. This Certificate
does not constitute ownership of any shares of Common Stock of Computer Associates International,
Inc. (the “Company”) or confer any rights associated with the ownership of shares, except as
expressly set forth herein. The participant will be entitled to receive, at the same time as
other shareholders of the Company, amounts equal to any dividends declared and paid in respect of
the shares underlying the Restricted Stock Units set forth above. This grant is subject in all
respects to the applicable terms of the Plan, which are incorporated by reference in this
Certificate. A copy of the Plan may be obtained at no cost by contacting the Corporate Treasurer.



This grant will vest in full six (6) months after the date the participant’s employment terminates
for any reason, at which time the Company shall deliver to the participant 100,000 shares of
Common Stock, free from all restrictions (other than such restrictions as may be applicable under
the federal securities laws).



The Company may satisfy any federal income tax withholding obligations that arise in connection
with the vesting of the Restricted Stock Units by withholding shares of Common Stock that are
issued pursuant to this award having a Fair Market Value, as defined
in the Plan, on the date the shares first become taxable equal to the minimum statutory withholding obligation with respect
to such taxable shares.




	 	 	 	 	 
	By

	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 
	

	 	Jeff Clarke	 	 
	

	 	Chief Operating Officer
```

[107th Congress Public Law 8]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ008.107]

[[Page 115 STAT. 10]]

Public Law 107-8
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To extend for 11 additional months the period for which chapter 12 of 
    title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted. <<NOTE: May 11, 
                          2001 -  [H.R. 256]>> 

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law 105-277, as 
amended by Public Law 106-5 and Public Law 106-70, <<NOTE: 11 USC 1201-
1208, 1221-1231, and 1201 note.>> is amended--
            (1) by striking ``July 1, 2000'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``June 1, 2001''; and
            (2) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``September 30, 1999'' and inserting 
                ``June 30, 2000''; and
                    (B) by striking ``October 1, 1999'' and inserting 
                ``July 1, 2000''.

SEC. 2. <<NOTE: 11 USC 1201 note.>> EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect on July 1, 2000.

    Approved May 11, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 256:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-2 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
            Feb. 28, considered and passed House.
            Apr. 26, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, March 14, 1995 (44), Para 44.12 Walnut Canyon National Monument]
[Page 376]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.44.12  walnut canyon national monument

  Mr. HAYWORTH moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 562) 
to modify the boundaries of Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State 
of Arizona; as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SHAYS, recognized Mr. HAYWORTH and Mr. 
RICHARDSON, each for 20 minutes.
  After debate,
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill, as amended?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SHAYS, announced that two-thirds of the 
Members present had voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. RICHARDSON demanded that the vote be taken by the yeas and nays, 
which demand was supported by one-fifth of the Members present, so the 
yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SHAYS, pursuant to clause 5, rule I, 
announced that further proceedings on the motion were postponed.
```
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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending May 6, 2006

|Filer                 | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                              | End of Comment Period                                
|--------------------- | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|BRAINTREE BANCORP MHC | * 3A1         | Braintree Bancorp MHC, Braintree, MA - section 3(a)(1) application to acquire The Braintree Co-operative Bank, Braintree, MA | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:            | Not available
|Federal Register:     | Not available

## 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
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2511 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require 

the use of science assessments in the calculation of adequate yearly 

progress, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2009 

Mr. EHLERS (for himself, Mr. HOLT, and Mr. HONDA) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to require the use of science assessments in 

the calculation of adequate yearly progress, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Science Accountability 

5 Act of 2009’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2511 IH

1 SEC. 2. SCIENCE ASSESSMENTS AND ADEQUATE YEARLY 

2 PROGRESS. 

3 Section 1111(b) of the Elementary and Secondary 

4 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (2)(G)(i), by striking ‘‘mathe6 matics and reading or language arts’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘mathematics, reading or language arts, and (begin8 ning in the 2010–2011 school year) science’’; and 

9 (2) in paragraph (3)(C)(vii), by striking ‘‘math10 ematics, and reading or language arts’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘mathematics, reading or language arts, and (begin12 ning in the 2011–2012 school year) science’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2007-27677; Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-2]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class D and Class E airspace at Manhattan, KS.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         0901 UTC, July 5, 2007.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2522.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 16, 2007 (72 FR 27413).  The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment.  This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 5, 2007.  No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.  Additionally the name is changed to Manhattan Regional Airport.                

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on June 4, 2007.

Walter Tweedy,

Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Area.

[FR Doc. 07-2992 Filed 6-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
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: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending November 7, 2009

|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
|----------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|CECIL BK, ELKTON, MARYLAND          | 813572 | 06/22/2009 | 10/08/2009     | S         | Int Sm Bank
|CHESAPEAKE BK, KILMARNOCK, VIRGINIA | 214722 | 06/15/2009 | 10/06/2009     | S         | Int Sm Bank
|PIONEER BK, STANLEY, VIRGINIA       | 41629  | 07/13/2009 | 10/15/2009     | O         | Small Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

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

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
#### § 502.320 Service.

All claims, resubmitted claims, petitions to intervene and rulings thereon, notices of oral hearings, notices of oral arguments (if necessary), decisions of the administrative law judge, notices of review, and Commission decisions shall be served by the administrative law judge or the Commission. All other pleadings, documents and filings shall, when tendered to the Commission, evidence service upon all parties to the proceeding. Such certificate shall be in substantially the following form:

## Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon all parties of record in this proceeding by [mailing, delivering to courier, or delivering in person], a copy to each such person in sufficient time to reach such person on the date the document is due to be filed with the Commission.

Dated at ____________________ this ________________ day of __________________, 19____.

(Signature)

(For)

[Rule 320.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. WILLIAM JOSEPH WHITEHEAD, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 330 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 26th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### § 402.100 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to implement those provisions of the Great Lakes Pilotage Regulations (part 401 of this chapter) which authorize or require the Commandant to issue supplementary rules and orders.

[27 FR 11947, Dec. 4, 1962, as amended at 32 FR 14223, Oct. 13, 1967; 61 FR 5721, Feb. 14, 1996. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 32655, June 25, 1996, and further redesignated and amended by USCG-1998-3976, 63 FR 35139, 35140, June 29, 1998]
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, Teresa A. Herbert, certify that: 

1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Independence Holding Company; 

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 quarterly report;

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 this quarterly report;

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-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:
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;

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

disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal controls 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

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the  registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
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

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 13, 2004 

/s/  Teresa A. Herbert

Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012089EN.01001401.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Efir OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv

(Case C-19/12)

2012/C 89/22

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Efir OOD

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ Plovdiv

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 62(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a chargeable event relates to both taxable and exempt transactions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 62(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a chargeable event relates to both taxable and exempt transactions?

1

| 2. | Should Question 1 be answered in the negative: Is a national provision such as that applicable in the main proceedings, under which a chargeable event also occurs at the time of an exempt transaction, permissible? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Question 1 be answered in the negative: Is a national provision such as that applicable in the main proceedings, under which a chargeable event also occurs at the time of an exempt transaction, permissible?

| 3. | Do Articles 62 and 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do Articles 62 and 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have direct effect?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
Government Regulatory

 Impact Model

Trial Standard Level Selected 3

ameters TSL SAC PAC SHP

2000 1 11 11 11

ear 2001 2 12 12 12

2006 3 12 12 13

2016 4 13 13 13

5 18 18 18

45.4% of Net Income 6

NPV 6.2% per year

0.0% per year Conversion Costs (million $)9.4% of Revenue Capital Conversion Amortization (yrs)

nt & Equipment 14.9% of Revenue SAC PAC SHP

14.0% of Revenue 11 SEER Std 11 $ 8 $ 8 $ 

elopment 1.0% of Revenue 12 SEER Std 54 $ 14 $ 23 $ 

2.6% of Revenue 13 SEER Std 99 $ 21 $ 38 $ 

res 2.9% of Revenue Selected $ 4 14 $ 10 $ 

25% of Shipments

Product Conversion

elect One in Each Box -- Defined on "Scenarios" Sheet) SAC PAC SHP

11 SEER Std 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 

12 SEER Std 31 $ 30 $ 31 $ 

13 SEER Std 46 $ 45 $ 46 $ 

Selected $ 7 8 $ 12 $ 

Split Packaged Split Packaged Split AC Pkg AC Split HP

AC AC HP HP 12 SEER 12 SEER 13 SEER

$483 $583 $681 $689 10 $0 $0 $0$555 $652 $732 $700 11 $0 $0 $0$636 $677 $804 $686 12 $657 $758 $0$750 $829 $916 $871 13 $750 $829 $981$944 $969 $1,052 $1,023 14 $944 $969 $1,052

$1,123 $1,179 $1,359 $1,202 15 $1,123 $1,179 $1,359

 94,740 853,761 249,283 33,907 826,586 91,574 235,785

$312 $351 $422 $427 $509 $572 $692

$26 $30 $38 $36 $42 $49 $62$31 $64 $60 $63 $51 $104 $98

79.7% 77.9% 62.3% 68.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

4.1% 4.2% 7.7% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

13.7% 8.2% 24.7% 24.3% 91.5% 91.5% 0.0%

1.5% 2.5% 4.1% 0.0% 3.5% 4.5% 92.9%0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 2.9% 2.0% 2.9%

Base Case (10 SEER standard) New Standard Case

Assumptions Page for 

Central ACs and Heat Pumps

Trial Standard Level Definition (SEER)

Central ACs and Heat Pumps

Product Mix - 2000

Price to Distributor - 2006

Sales Volume (units) - 2006

Baseline Unit Production Cost 2006 

Product Mix - 2006

Price to Distributor 2000 - 2005

Sales Volume (units) - 2006

Baseline Unit Production Cost 2000 - 2016

NAECAShiftRollup

FlatExponentialCustom

Rev EngARI Mean

Mfr Markup Relative Cost

8/29/2006 Major Assumptions