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 31, 2014

d1028

Order 

Clerk

October 31, 2014

149551

SHAND LAWPLLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149551

COA: 319697

Washtenaw CC: 13-000699-AV

MIN DONG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 19, 2014 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.

MARKMAN, J. (concurring).

I concur in the majority’s order denying leave to appeal. I write separately only to 

observe that when an attorney’s representation under a contingency-fee agreement is 

terminated before completion of the contracted-for services, “the attorney is entitled to 

compensation for the reasonable value of his services on the basis of quantum meruit, and 

not on the basis of the contract, provided that his discharge was wrongful or his 

withdrawal was for good cause.” Plunkett & Cooney, PC v Capitol Bancorp, Ltd, 212 

Mich App 325, 329-330 (1995). Notwithstanding what I view as the trial court’s 

misapplication of this rule, the practical consequences here are slight and further 

proceedings would require an expenditure of judicial resources that is difficult to justify.
H. Res. 347

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 14, 2002.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R.

622) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand

the adoption credit, and for other purposes, with Senate

amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without

intervention of any point of order, a single motion offered by

the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or his

designee that the House concur in each of the Senate amendments with the respective amendment printed in the report

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The

Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as

read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final
2

•HRES 347 EH

adoption without intervening motion or demand for division

of the question.

Attest:

Clerk.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Received: January 16, 2016

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1k0-8nf6-6h99

Comments Due: January 19, 2016

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2015-0017

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits

Comment On: EBSA-2015-0017-0001

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits

Document: EBSA-2015-0017-DRAFT-0030

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-29295

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Re: RIN 1210-AB39

I am writing to comment on the Proposed Regulations issued by the Department of Labor, 

Employee Benefits Security Administration on November 18, 2015 ("Proposed Regulations").

I'd like to commend the Department of Labor ("Department") for this very constructive proposal. 

I strongly support adoption of the Proposed Regulations as soon as possible.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 615 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                      November 15 (legislative day, November 14), 2002.
    Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by the House to join 
a similar committee appointed by the Senate, to wait upon the President of the 
United States and inform him that the two Houses have completed their business 
of the session and are ready to adjourn, unless the President has some other 
communication to make to them.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Environmental 

Protection Agency 

John R. Kasich, Governor 

Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor 

Scott J. Nally, Director 

December 2, 2011 UE' o 2011 

') :> l-.u-·, •'-'-'·· 

T ~~.-::r?--J,'i.L:·__· __.__ .,,')},~·-::·: 

Susan Hedman 

Regional Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 

77 West Jackson Blvd 

Chicago, IL 60604 

RE: Peters Cartridge Site 


Kings Mills, Ohio 


Dear Administrator Hedman: 

The State of Ohio supports the inclusion of Peters Cartridge in Warren County on 

the next proposed National Priorities List (NPL). The Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study conducted at the site documented threats to public 

health and the environment. Listing the site on the NPL will allow your agency to 

move forward with implementing the remedy for the Peters Cartridge site in a 

timely manner. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

r~ Scott J. Nally 

Director
Exhibit 11

                       Computation of Net Income Per Share
               (In thousands, except share and earnings per share)


                                                         For the Quarter Ended 
                                                       -------------------------
                                                        March 31,      March 31,
                                                          1999           1998
                                                       ----------     ----------
Net Income Per Share - Basic

Net income applicable to common stock                  $  293,000     $  221,000

Weighted average common shares                          1,926,463      2,077,433

Earnings per common share                              $     0.15     $     0.11


Net Income Per Share - Diluted

Net income applicable to common stock                  $  293,000     $  221,000

Weighted average common shares                          1,926,463      2,077,433

Dilutive common stock options                              18,228            831
                                                       ----------     ----------

Weighted average common shares - diluted                1,944,691      2,078,264

Earnings per common share                              $     0.15     $     0.11
         .........


                                       15
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 85 Agreed to House (ATH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 85

 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2001

 Mr. Portman submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he is hereby, 
elected to the following standing committee of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr. Pombo shall 
rank immediately after Mr. Moran of Kansas.
                                 <all>
```
Eagle Resolve exercise concludes today in United Arab Emirates
 By None  , CENTCOM Public Affairs
  UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (June 6, 2011) — U.S. Forces and their Gulf Cooperative Council partners successfully concluded Eagle Resolve, a multinational exercise hosted by the United Arab Emirates, today. “The UAE and its Gulf Cooperation Council partners worked together in a simulated operational environment to respond to rapidly developing military scenarios requiring interagency, civilian information, consequence management, practical field events, and high-level senior leader discussions,” said U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Steven Foster, executive director of Eagle Resolve 2011. Eagle Resolve, one of more than a dozen cooperative exercises U.S. Central Command is involved in, is designed to support the Cooperative Defense Program.  Initiated in 1992, CDP evolved from a formal counter proliferation policy to a strategic effort by 2004 to counter terrorists and their potential chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks, or weapons of mass destruction.  Eagle Resolve is designed to increase communication and interoperability in the area of regional consequence management when responding to various natural and man-made threats. The exercise began with a Command Post Exercise involving multiple threat scenarios, in multiple areas to strengthen communication and interoperability.  This was followed by practical field events in military and interagency consequence management and interdiction/border security. The United States is committed to regional security with its allies in the Arabian Peninsula.  This year’s Eagle Resolve exercise provided multilateral forces the opportunity to carry out exercises in a joint interagency environment to increase tactical proficiency, strengthen military-to-military relationships, expand cooperation, enhance maritime capabilities and promote long-term regional stability. In its twelfth year, Eagle Resolve demonstrates U.S. Central Command’s commitment to GCC regional partners and the combined efforts to sustain regional security and stability. Questions can be addressed to U.S. Central Command at 813-827-5895.
___________ No. 96-3153

___________ Rosie Campbell, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. * Blevins Public Schools; Jimmy * Buck, individually; David * [Unpublished] Banister, individually; Glen * Smith, individually, * * Appellees. * *

___________ Submitted: April 15, 1997 Filed: May 9, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, Cir cuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and Beam, Circuit Judge.

___________

### 2

PER CURIAM. Rosie Campbell filed this lawsuit against the Blevins (Arkansas ) Public Schools and certain school board members following the December 199 3 termination of her contract as a teacher and coach. Campbell asserted tha t the termination violated her rights under the due process clause of th e Fourte enth Amendment and under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act . After a non-jury trial, the district court grant ed judgment for the school district and the individual defendants on all claims.
On ap peal Campbell expressly chose to abandon her federa l constitutional claim and to challenge only the district court's decision regarding the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-17

- 1501 through 1510. In the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, however, we have considered the pendent state cl aim. Condor Corp. v. City of St. Paul , 912 F.2d 215, 219-21 (8th Cir. 1990). The Arkansas Supreme Court has required strict compliance with th e state statute as amended and in general has acte d favorably to teachers so as to assure that dismissals are fair as required by the Arkansas law. Cf . Lester v. Mount Vernon-Enola School Dist. , 917 S.W.2d 540 (Ark. 1996) . However, after a revi ew of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the opinion of the district court, we find that the decision of the district court in favor of the defendants contains no error of law, that th e findings of fact by the district court are not c learly erroneous, and that an extended opinion by our court would have no precedential value. Accordin gly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. See 8th Cir . R. 47B.

### 3 A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
From: Nancy McComish

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:39:32 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Nancy McComish

15 Barker Street

Keene, NH 03431
§ 826.3 Proceedings covered. ( a ) The Act applies to certain adversary adjudications conducted by the Board. These are adjudications under 5 U.S.C. 554 in which the position of the FAA is presented by an attorney or other representative who enters an appearance and participates in the proceedings. Proceedings to grant or renew certificates or documents, hereafter referred to as “licenses,” are excluded, but proceedings to modify, suspend, or revoke licenses or to impose a civil penalty on a flight engineer, mechanic, pilot, or repairman (or person acting in that capacity) are covered if they are otherwise “adversary adjudications.” For the Board, the type of proceeding covered includes (but may not be limited to) aviation enforcement cases appealed to the Board under sections 501, 609, 611 and 901 of the Federal Aviation Act (49 U.S.C. 44101 *et seq.,* 44720-44711, 44715, 46301).
( b ) The Board may also designate a proceeding not listed in paragraph (a) as an adversary adjudication for purposes of the Act by so stating in an order initiating the proceeding or designating the matter for hearing. The Board's failure to designate a proceeding as an adversary adjudication shall not preclude the filing of an application by a party who believes the proceeding is covered by the Act; whether the procedure is covered will then be an issue for resolution in proceedings on the application.
( c ) If a proceeding includes both matters covered by the Act and matters specifically excluded from coverage, any award made will include only fees and expenses related to covered issues.
[46 FR 48209, Oct. 1, 1981, as amended at 59 FR 59054, Nov. 15, 1994]
Page 1 ofL rx EG-- I)f qJ2 -/ G ,~ i 

LBGAL PROCESSING DIVISION 


PUBLICATION &. REGULAT10NS 


BRANCH 


As of: August 20, 2010 

Received: August 09, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: August 20, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2c72e 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, 2010 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathel"ed 

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 Status as 

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

Document: IRS-20 10-001 0-0287 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

--------------------------------------------------------------------.... 

Submitter Information 

Name: Walker Sahag 

Address: 

Mandeville, 

------------------------------------------------------------------...... 


General Comment 

08/09/2010 

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 

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. 

https:llfdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency Icomponentl submitter InfoCoverPage ?Call=... 8/20/2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7268

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOEL AMOS MITCHELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

On Petition for Rehearing.

Submitted: September 9, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Frank Gonzalez, Tampa, Florida, for Appellant. Julie C.

Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We previously denied a

certificate of appealability and dismissed on the reasoning of the

district court. Appellant filed a timely petition for rehearing in

which he asserts that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lindh

v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No.

96-6298), alters the appropriate disposition of the appeal. We

grant Appellant's petition for rehearing on that basis. As we

stated in our prior opinion, we have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mitchell v.

United States, Nos. CR-90-63, CA-95-1208-R (W.D. Va. July 19,

1996). We deny Appellant's remaining ground for relief in the

petition for rehearing. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
**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





In
      connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of South Jersey
      Gas Company (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Edward J. Graham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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/
      Edward J. Graham


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


Name:
      Edward J. Graham


Title:
      Chief Executive Officer


May
      11,
      2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                              9
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  financial  information  extracted from the consolidated
financial  statements of FirstBank NW Corp.  for the nine months ended  December
31,  1999 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001035513
<NAME>                   FirstBank Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                           1
<CURRENCY>                           USD

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>               OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                        1
<CASH>                            15,287
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>             4,088
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                   2,794
<TRADING-ASSETS>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>       11,327
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                 0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                   0
<LOANS>                          180,999
<ALLOWANCE>                        1,548
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   244,448
<DEPOSITS>                       145,636
<SHORT-TERM>                      48,526
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                2,618
<LONG-TERM>                       21,901
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                              20
<OTHER-SE>                        25,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>   244,448
<INTEREST-LOAN>                   11,135
<INTEREST-INVEST>                    922
<INTEREST-OTHER>                     435
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                  12,493
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                 4,023
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 6,078
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>              6,415
<LOAN-LOSSES>                        219
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                     0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                    6,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    1,908
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>         1,908
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                       1,323
<EPS-BASIC>                         0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0.81
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                      2.84
<LOANS-NON>                          533
<LOANS-PAST>                          84
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                     199
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                        0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                   1,361
<CHARGE-OFFS>                         38
<RECOVERIES>                          12
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                  1,548
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>               1,548
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                0


</TABLE>
H. Res. 510

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 27 (legislative day, July 26), 2002.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he

is hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: Mr. Gekas of Pennsylvania.

Attest:

Clerk.
From: Judith Shaffer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:11:04 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Judith Shaffer

20 Pomeroy Terrace

Northampton, MA 01060