alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, 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.

 June 5, 2015

t0602

Order 

Clerk

June 5, 2015

150395

In re Application of CONSUMERS ENERGY

COMPANY for Reconciliation of 2009 Costs

__________________________________________

TES FILER CITY STATION LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP,

Appellant,

v SC: 150395

COA: 305066 

Public Service Commission:

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, 00-015675

Petitioner-Appellee, 

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

and ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 25, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). 

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order 

addressing when the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s administrative 

rules requiring generators to purchase NOx allowances were “implemented,” as that term 

is used in MCL 460.6a(8). The parties should not submit mere restatements of their 

application papers.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4058]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance; Correction

    This notice corrects the Notice of Determinations Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance which was published in the Federal Register 
on February 27, 2007 (72 FR 8794-8795).
    This revises the reporting period dates on pages 8794-8795 to read 
February 12 through February 16, 2007 instead of January 12 through 
January 16, 2007.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 1st day of March 2007.
Ralph DiBattista,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-4058 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
November 13, 1947

No. 52034.

#### H. A. Caesar & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 865101-G, etc.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
No. 65488.

#### Victor B. Handal & Bro., Inc., by Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L.A. *v.*United States,

protest 60/20186 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

An examination of the protest disclosing that is was untimely filed under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the motion to dismiss was granted.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6071

PATRICK BOVEA TAYLOR, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MS. DEAN, Correction Officer; BENRY SMITH; RONALD GREEN; JESSE COAL; DONTAY TAYLOR; RONALD CLARK, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-00-1476-AM) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Bovea Taylor, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Patrick Bovea Taylor, Sr., appeals the district court’s orderdenying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. 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. Taylor v. Dean , No. CA-00-1476-AM (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 6, 2000; entered Dec. 7, 2000). 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
#### David Brandon BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7748.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 17, 2001.

David Brandon Brown, pro se. Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

David Brandon Brown seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. *114§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. *See Brown v. Angelone,*No. CA-00-462-2 (E.D.Va. Nov. 17, 2000). 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.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
No. 63106.

#### J. J. Boll *v.*United States,

protest 58/19975 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 54652.

#### Wing Wo Lung Co. *v.*United States,

protest 93976-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

At the trial the defendant contended that the merchandise is dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1538 by similitude to manufactures of ivory. A Government chemist’s report received in evidence (exhibit 2) states that the sample of the merchandise (exhibit 1) is composed wholly of synthetic phenolic resin with a little pigment but that the resin does not serve as a binding agent. In this connection, the records in Abstracts 45795, 49907, 51306, and 51959 were incorporated herein. The testimony of the examiner íd the case of *Wenchow Importing Co.*v. *United States,*Abstract 54651, decided concurrently herewith, was admitted in evidence herein. Said testimony failed to establish that the imported articles were similar to ivory in material, texture, quality, and use, as claimed, and failed to support classification by similitude. *Roovers Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(23 Cust. Ct. 53, C. D. 1190) cited. On the record presented and following the cited authorities, it was held that the defendant *271failed to establish its claim that these articles are dutiable under paragraph 1538. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
No. 46146.

#### Protests 21534-K, etc., of F. Pavel & Co.

Abstract 45941. Application by plaintiffs for rehearing granted.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                          JEFFERSON-PILOT CORPORATION

SUBSIDIARY LISTING AS OF MARCH 5, 2001

Jefferson-Pilot Corporation (North Carolina corp.)

    The Guarantee Life Companies Inc. (Delaware corp.)

       Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance Company (Nebraska corp.)(2)

          Jefferson Pilot LifeAmerica Insurance Company (New Jersey corp.)

    HARCO Capital Corp. (Delaware corp.)

    Hampshire Funding Inc. (New Hampshire corp.)

    Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust A (Delaware business trust)

    Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust B (Delaware business trust)

    Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company (North Carolina corp.)

       Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of California (North Carolina
       corp.)

       Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Virginia (Virginia corp.)

       Jefferson-Pilot Sports, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)

       WCSC, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)

          Tall Tower, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)

    Jefferson Pilot Investment Advisory Corporation (Tennessee corp.)

    Jefferson-Pilot Investments, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)

    Jefferson Pilot Variable Corporation (North Carolina corp.)

    Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)

       Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)

    Jefferson Pilot Securities Corporation (New Hampshire corp.)

       Allied Professional Advisors, Inc. (New Hampshire corp.)

       The Polaris Group, Inc. (Connecticut corp.)

          Polaris Financial Services, Inc. (Connecticut corp.)(2)

          Polaris Advisory Services, Inc. (Connecticut corp.)(2)
---------------

Notes:

(1) Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.
(2) The immediate parent owns 100% of the voting securities of each entity,
    except that Jefferson-Pilot Corporation directly owns 80% of Jefferson Pilot
    Financial Insurance Company, and 10% of each of the lower tier Polaris
    companies is owned by Jefferson Pilot Securities Corporation.
(3) All entities more than 50% owned are listed, except that several
    subsidiaries that in the aggregate are insignificant have been omitted.

                                       E-3
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.

January 24, 2014

jam 

# Order

Clerk January 24, 2014

148559 ( 36 )

ELEES JOESPH LANTON

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 1 48559

COA: 316817

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be

liable for filing fees.

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall p ay to the

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $ 27 .00, shall submit a copy of this order

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of

$3 4 8.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Jeffrey Marshall,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1657 DFL PAN P

vs. Order Governing Discovery

Solano County Sheriff, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 16, and

26-36, the following provisions shall govern discovery in this

action.

1. Discovery requests shall be served by the parties

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and Local Rule

5-135 and shall be filed only when required by Local Rules

30-250(a), 33-250(c), 34-250(c) and 36-250(c).

2. Responses to written discovery requests shall be due 45

days after the request is served.

Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK Document 84 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

3. Defendants may examine at deposition plaintiff or any 

prisoner provided that at least 14 days before such examination,

defendants serve all parties with the notice required by Fed. R.

Civ. P. 30(b)(1).

4. If disputes arise about the parties' discovery

obligations, the parties shall comply with Rules 5, 7, 11, 26,

and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 5-134,

5-135, 6-136, 7-130, 7-131, 7-132, 11-110, 43-140, and 78-230(m)

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California. Unless otherwise ordered,

Local Rule 37-251 shall not apply. 

5. Filing a discovery motion that does not comply with all

applicable rules may result in imposition of sanctions including

but not limited to denial of the motion.

So ordered.

Dated: December 8, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK Document 84 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 2
Harris v. Chico Nissan, et al., Case No. CIV. S-04-1149 WBS CMK 

[Proposed) Order Amending the Scheduling Order 

1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TONY HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHICO NISSAN, INC., RAYMOND L. 

BOWEN, et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: CIV S 04-1149 WBS CMK 

EX PARTE PROPOSED ORDER 

AMENDING THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO EXTEND THE 

DISCOVERY CUTOFF

Having considered Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order amending the 

scheduling order to extend discovery cutoff by three weeks (the “Application”), and papers 

presented by the parties in connection with the Application, including Defendants’ Notice 

of Non-Opposition to the Motion, and good cause having been shown; 

/// 

LYNN HUBBARD III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV, SBN 212970 

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE 

CHICO, CA. 95926 

(530) 895-3252 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01149-DFL-CMK Document 23 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 2
Harris v. Chico Nissan, et al., Case No. CIV. S-04-1149 WBS CMK 

[Proposed) Order Amending the Scheduling Order 

2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

Plainiff’s Application is hereby granted as follows: 

(1) The discovery cutoff is hereby extended; 

(2) The last day to hear law and motion matters is hereby extended until 

October 28, 2005. 

 

Dated: August 15, 2005 

 

Case 2:04-cv-01149-DFL-CMK Document 23 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99.2
         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE ACT
         ------------------------------------------------

     I, Thomas Gelfand hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bliss
Essentials Corp.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects our financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4. The other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and we have:

a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
    material information relating to Bliss Essentials Corp., including
    its subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within
    those entities, particularly during the period in which this
    quarterly report is being prepared;

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
    procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
    filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
    our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.  The other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  that there were no significant deficiencies in the design or
    operation of internal controls which could adversely affect our
    ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
    and have further advised our auditors that there we are not aware
    of any material weaknesses in our internal controls; and

b)  that there was no fraud, whether or not material, that involved
    our management or other employees who have a significant role in
    our internal controls; and

6.  The other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
that there were no significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation.

                                   BLISS ESSENTIALS CORP., Registrant

Dated: May 10, 2004               /s/ Thomas Gelfand
                                   -------------------------------------
                                   By: Thomas Gelfand, Chief Executive
                                   Officer, President and Chairman of
                                   the Board of Directors
(Reap. Dec. 10430)

#### Gitkin Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 15081; 18811; 6698.

(Decided January 16, 1963)

*Barnes, Richardson é Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise and the issues involved in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Gitlcin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 2. That at the dates of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for exportation *373to the United States to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoiced ex-factory unit values, net, packed; and that on or about the said dates of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered to all purchasers for home consumption in the country of exportation.

> 3. That the involved merchandise was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, before the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

> 4. That the appeals enumerated in Schedule “A” may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts and consistent with the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the invoiced ex-factory unit values, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 50045.

Suit 4480.

#### Armand *Schwab & Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

affirmed January 4, 1945. C. A. D. 296.
# C_2007161EN.01003801.xml

| 13.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/38

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the steering equipment of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (Codified version)

COM(2006) 670 final — 2006/0225 (COD)

(2007/C 161/10)

On 29 November 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 February 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Burns.

At its 434th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 March 2007 (meeting of 14 March 2007), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 157 votes with six abstentions.

| 1. | The purpose of the proposal is to undertake the codification of Council Directive 75/321/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The purpose of the proposal is to undertake the codification of Council Directive 75/321/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors.

| 2. | The Committee considers the codification of all texts in a single directive to be very useful. It has been assured that this codification contains no substantial change and its sole purpose is to render Community legislation clear and transparent. The Committee fully endorses this objective and, having received the above-mentioned assurance, welcomes the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Committee considers the codification of all texts in a single directive to be very useful. It has been assured that this codification contains no substantial change and its sole purpose is to render Community legislation clear and transparent. The Committee fully endorses this objective and, having received the above-mentioned assurance, welcomes the proposal.

Brussels, 14 March 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
Case No. 9,045.

#### MANNING v. JAMESSON et al.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 285.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1806.

Continuance — Affidavits—Counter- Affi- . davits.

Counter-affidavits cannot be read on a motion for a continuance of the cause.

[This was a suit by Manning against James-son & Young.]

Mr. Taylor, made an affidavit for a continuance. A counter-affidavit was read, but THE COURT said they would not consider the reading of it as a precedent.