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

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135697-98 & (10) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 135697-98 

 COA: 282489, 282491 

Macomb CC: 06-003793-FH 

LAVELLE WESLEY SEARCY, 07-000052-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 14, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

appoint counsel is DENIED as moot. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting 

statement in People v Conway, 474 Mich 1140 (2006). 

t0421 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,039                   2,376
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,626                  25,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                       402                     423
<INVENTORY>                                     27,223                  28,435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,177                  59,256
<PP&E>                                          50,106                  53,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,145                  24,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,678                  89,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,571                  27,240
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           591                     589
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,379                  51,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,678                  89,907
<SALES>                                        172,431                 166,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,431                 166,776
<CGS>                                          133,231                 130,189
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,231                 130,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,765                  25,974
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 969                   1,257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,528                   9,430
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,111                   2,650
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,417                   6,780
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,417                   6,780
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .96                     .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .95                     .75
        

</TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00081-CV

IN RE AP GULF STATES, INC.

Original Proceeding

ORDER

Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed on March 1, 2019. The Court 

requests a response to Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus from Respondent and/or

Real Parties in Interest, Coryell County Memorial Hospital Authority d/b/a Coryell 

Memorial Healthcare System and Zurich American Insurance Company. Any response 

shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court within 14 days from the date of this Order.

Relator’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief is granted. The trial court’s 

February 26, 2019 Order concerning tender of funds and any proceedings in trial court 

cause no. DC-19-49267 are stayed pending further order of this Court.
In re AP Gulf States, Inc. Page 2

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Order issued and filed March 4, 2019
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------




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

        In connection with the annual report of Spire Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A (the "Report") for the year ended December 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Christian Dufresne, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


Dated:      November 20, 2009             By:  /s/ Christian Dufresne
                                               --------------------------
                                               Christian Dufresne
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               and Treasurer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT CUONG MAN CHAU, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-616 February 28, 2024 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Pat Siracusa, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan S. Picart, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Krystle Celine Cacci, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
§ 596.9 General description. ( a ) The vehicle test device provides a sensor representation of a passenger motor vehicle.
( b ) The rear view of the vehicle test device contains representations of the vehicle silhouette, a rear window, a high-mounted stop lamp, two taillamps, a rear license plate, two rear reflex reflectors, and two tires.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                9
<MULTIPLIER>             1000
       
<CAPTION>
<S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                 10448
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                 0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       15700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            112588
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                 80816
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                   80682
<LOANS>                                384097
<ALLOWANCE>                            2589
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         631000
<DEPOSITS>                             487855
<SHORT-TERM>                           30000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                    6632
<LONG-TERM>                            0
<COMMON>                               904
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                             105609
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>         631000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                        7402
<INTEREST-INVEST>                      3293
<INTEREST-OTHER>                       132
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                       10827
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                     4839
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     5324
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                  5503
<LOAN-LOSSES>                          204
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                     913
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                        3073
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        3558
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>             3558
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           2276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                         7.29
<LOANS-NON>                            3018
<LOANS-PAST>                           3798
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                       99
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                        4554
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                       2901
<CHARGE-OFFS>                          554
<RECOVERIES>                           28
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                      2589
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                   2589
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                0
        
<PAGE>
- 283 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S heets 

### 302 N ebraska 

### R eports U.S. SPECIALTY INS. CO. v . D S AVIONICS Cite as 302 Neb. 283



### U

. S

. S pe c ialty 

### I n sura nc e 

### C ompa n y 

### , a c orporatio n 

### , appellee 

### , v



### . D S A vio n i c s 

### U n limited 

### LL C, appella n t



### .

___ N.W.2d ___ Filed February 15, 2019. No. S-17-1101.

suppleme n tal opi n io n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: S helly 

### R

. S tratma n 

### , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modified. Motions for rehearing overruled. Thomas M. Locher, of Locher, Pavelka, Dostal, Braddy & Hammes, L.L.C., for appellant. Robert E. O’Connor, Jr., for appellee.
H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., M iller


### - L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c y 

### , F u n ke 

### , and P

apik 

### , JJ., and J oh n so n 

### , District Judge

.

P er 

### C uriam



### . This case is before us on motions for rehearing filed by the appellant, D S Avionics Unlimited LLC, and the appellee, U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, concerning our opinion in U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. D S Avionics

. 1 

### We overrule the motions, but we modify the opinion as follows:

1 U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. D S Avionics , 301 Neb. 388, 918 N.W.2d 589

(2018). Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 05/10/2019 09:07 AM CDT- 284 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S heets 

### 302 N ebraska 

### R eports U.S. SPECIALTY INS. CO. v . D S AVIONICS Cite as 302 Neb. 283 

### In the “Declaratory Judgment Was Premature” subsection, we strike the third sentence of the first paragraph, including footnote 14. 2 

### Also in the same subsection, after the fourth sentence of the second paragraph, 3 

### we insert the following sen

tence: “‘This rule embraces not only cases where the identi

cal issues between the same parties are sub judice , but also possibly cases in which the issues only are identical but not the parties.’” 4 

### The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modi f ied



### . M otio n s f or reheari n g overruled



### .

2 Id . at 398, 918 N.W.2d at 596.
3 Id . at 399, 918 N.W.2d at 596.
4 Strawn v. County of Sarpy , 146 Neb. 783, 788, 21 N.W.2d 597, 600

(1946).
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 417

Recognizing and honoring the career and work of Justice C. Clifton Young.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 14, 2002

Mr. GIBBONS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Recognizing and honoring the career and work of Justice

C. Clifton Young.

Whereas Justice C. Clifton Young, a native Nevadan, has

served in public office since 1950;

Whereas Justice Young was elected to the House of Representatives in 1952 where he served for 2 terms and

never missed a vote;

Whereas Justice Young served for 14 years in the Nevada

State Senate where he focused principally on land use

issues;

Whereas Justice Young has served on the Nevada Supreme

Court since 1984;

Whereas Justice Young was inducted into the Nevada State

Senate Hall of Fame in 1995;
2

HRES 417 IH

Whereas in addition to his service in elected office, Justice

Young has remained active in various community and

service organizations, including serving as President of

the National Wildlife Foundation;

Whereas Justice Young attended the University of Nevada in

Reno, and Harvard Law School;

Whereas Justice Young proudly served as an officer in the

103rd Infantry Division in France, Germany, and Austria during World War II;

Whereas Justice Young has been a loving husband to Jane

Hempfling Young for almost 50 years, and together they

have raised 5 children; and

Whereas Justice Young stands as a role model to all people

of the United States as a proud and successful public

servant: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) honors the dedication and commitment of

3 Justice C. Clifton Young to the people of Nevada

4 and the United States;

5 (2) congratulates Justice Young on his long

6 and successful career; and

7 (3) expresses its best wishes to Justice Young

8 upon his retirement from the Nevada Supreme

9 Court.

Æ
#### § 585.37 Records.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 67886, Aug. 22, 2024.

Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is reported under § 585.36 until December 31, 2013.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Received: October 24, 2017

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1k1-8zel-wb00

Comments Due: December 11, 2017

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2015-0017

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits; Extension of Applicability 

Date

Comment On: EBSA-2015-0017-0291

Claims Procedure: Plans Providing Disability Benefits

Document: EBSA-2015-0017-DRAFT-0378

Comment on FR Doc # 2017-22082

Submitter Information

Name: Bridget O'Ryan

General Comment

I am opposed to the delay in implementing the new rules. The Department of Labor 

went to great lengths to promulgate these revised rules, including several months of 

analyzing comments from the insurance industry and consumer protection firms. The 

DOL thoughtfully and carefully composed these revised regulations based on more 

than a decade of experience from the past regulations. After receiving extensive 

comments and analysis of these comments, the Department of Labor carefully crafted 

regulations that align with the goals of both the insurance industry and the disability 

claimants who are affected by these regulations. There has been no substantial proof 

provided that the regulations would increase costs significantly and in fact in many 

ways it appears that the regulations would reduce the costs of litigation to insurers by 

insuring a full and fair appeal process of a denied claim. The DOL took into 

consideration all of the concerns voiced by all parties, including alleged financial 

concerns, and crafted regulations that support the goals of the DOL of enforcing 

ERISA, protecting employees who have employee benefit claims, and reducing the 

litigation expenses to employers and disability insurers. There has been no significant 

reason proposed for delaying the implementation of the regulations or any evidence 
provided that a delay is necessary. Accordingly, a delay in the implementation of 

these regulations is unwarranted.
TERMINATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT



 Exhibit 10.75 
  
 TERMINATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into as of October 20, 2003 (the “Effective Date”), by and
between Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation (“Microsoft”), and ePresence, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (“ePresence”). 
  
 For valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by both parties, the parties agrees as follows: 
  
 1. Payment. On the Effective Date, ePresence shall pay to Microsoft
the sum of $6.5 million by wire transfer to an account designated by Microsoft. 
  
 2. Termination. As of the Effective Date, the Alliance Agreement dated as of January 8, 1999, as amended, between Microsoft and ePresence (the “Alliance Agreement”) shall terminate and neither
Microsoft nor ePresence shall have any further rights or obligations thereunder, except that the provisions of Sections 8.1, 9, 11, 12 and 14 (other than Section 14.4) shall survive such termination and remain in effect. 
  
 3. Warrants. As of the Effective Date, the Common Stock Warrant dated
January 8, 1999 issued by ePresence to Microsoft providing for the right of Microsoft Corporation to purchase up to 1,750,000 shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value per share, of ePresence, and the Warrant Purchase Agreement dated as of January 8,
1999 made by and between ePresence and Microsoft, shall terminate (unexercised) and shall be of no further force or effect. 
  
 4. Releases. 
  
 (a) ePresence does hereby release and forever discharge Microsoft from all claims that ePresence has or may have in any way relating to
the Alliance Agreement. 
  
 (b) Microsoft does
hereby release and forever discharge ePresence from all claims that Microsoft has or may have in any way relating to the Alliance Agreement. 
  
 5. General. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all which shall constitute one and
the same agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. 
  

			
	ePRESENCE, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/    WILLIAM P. FERRY        
	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	William P. Ferry
	 Title:
	 	Chairman and CEO
	
	MICROSOFT CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/    JOHN G. CONNORS        
	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	John G. Connors
	 Title:
	 	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/davis_bacon_and_labor_standards...

1 of 2 1/16/2019, 12:38 PM
HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/davis_bacon_and_labor_standards...

2 of 2 1/16/2019, 12:38 PM
----

|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   February      28, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Patricia K. Collawn        |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|                                          |   | Patricia      K. Collawn            |
|                                          |   | President      and CEO              |
|                                          |   | Texas-New      Mexico Power Company |

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

Page 1 of2 

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION 


PUBLICATION &. REGULATIONS 


BRANCH 


As of: August 25, 2010 

Received: August 10, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: August 25, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2d567 

PUBLIC 


SUBMISSION 
 Comments Due: August 16, ~~010 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Statu~; as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0381 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

--------------------------------------------------------------------,---­

Submitter Information 

Name: Crystal F Neal 

Address: 

590 Camino Caballo 

Nipomo, CA, 93444 

Email: cneal@co.santa-barbara.ca.us 

Phone: 805-929-6181 

Organization: SEIUlocal620 

Government Agency Type: Local 

General Comment 

August 10, 2010 

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status 

as a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS-2010­

0010-0001). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and 

https:llfdms.erulemaking.net!fdms-web-agency/ component! submitter InfoCover Page?Call=... 8/25/2010 
Page 20f2 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers under currently existing "grandfathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these 

regulations. 

Crystal Neal 

590 Camino Caballo 

Nipomo, Ca 93444 

https:llfdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency1componentisubmitterlnfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/25/2010
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1197.html[7/22/2015 3:36:17 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-wye5

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1197

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Douglas Robinson

General Comment

These regulations are ridiculous and insulting. I am perfectly capable of planning my own retirement with the

 money I earned and saved.
#### Maria A. Witthaus v. Frederick C. C. Schack.

Motion denied. Opinion by

Daniels, J.