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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

July 3 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk July 3 , 2019

158 563 ( 67 )

RYAN MENARD, by his c onservator,

SHELLY MENARD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 158563

v COA: 336220

Macomb CC: 2014

- 003145

- NI

TERRY R. IMIG and SHARRYL ANN

EVERSON,

Defendants

, and

MACOMB COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

ROADS and COUNTY OF MACOMB,

Defendants

- Appellees

. _________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellant to extend the time

for filing her supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted

as timely filed if submitted on or before July 24 , 2019.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6382** 

KEITH L. FITZGERALD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. LORETTA KELLY, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. James C. Turk , Senior District Judge. ( 7:09

- cv - 00155

- jct

- mfu )

Submitted : August 26, 2010 Decided: September 1, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un pu blished per curiam opinion
. Keith L. Fitzgerald, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Keith F itzgerald seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificat e of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasona ble jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fitzgerald has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Fitzgerald’s motion to amend his informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the ap peal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 74-5888.

#### Delorio *v.*Henderson, Correctional Superintendent.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 96-7810.

#### Ramirez *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 96-5796.

#### Gary *v.*Pension Fund of International Union of Operating Engineers, #478.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
No. 74-6101.

#### Theriault *v.*Pittman, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court, et al.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus and/or mandamus denied.
# C_2016402EN.01004201.xml

| 31.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2016 — Alsharghawi v Council

(Case T-485/15) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya - Freezing of funds - List of persons subject to restrictions on entry into and transit through EU territory - Functions of the former head of cabinet of Muammar Qadhafi - Choice of legal basis - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Freedom of movement - Right to property - Obligation to justify the merits of the measure))

(2016/C 402/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi (Johannesburg, South Africa) (represented by: É. Moutet, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part, firstly, of Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2015 L 206, p. 34) and, secondly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1323 of 31 July 2015 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2015 L 206, p. 4).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
MEMORANDUM

Date: November13 , 2013

Subject: Summary of discussion from the October 23 , 2013

, teleconference

between API representatives and the Environmental Protection Agency on

source relocation under the Tribal minor NSR Rule

From: Greg Nizich, EPA/OAQPS/ AQPD / NSRG

To: EPA Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 20 03

- 0076

I. PURPOSE

This memorandum summarizes the October 23, 2013 telephone conference between the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and representatives of the American Petroleum

Institute (API )

. The purpose of the call was to clarif y API’s comments from their August 2, 2013

comment letter on the Tribal minor NSR Rule amendments

, propose d in the Federal Register on

June 4, 2013

.

II. DATE

The teleconference occurred from 1 2 :00 p m to 1 : 0 0 pm EDT October 23, 2013

.

III. ATTENDEES

The following individu als participated on the call :

API members/representatives

Matt Todd (API)

John Wagner (API)

Bill Wehrum (Hunton & Williams)

Jeff Adams (BP)

Rebecca Skiba (Marathon Oil )

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Greg Nizich, OAQPS

Raj Rao, OAQPS

Scott Mathias, OAQPS2

IV. SUMMARY OF DI SC USSION

Mr. Mathias opened the meeting by acknowledging API’s comments on the proposed

amendments and stating EPA’s desire t o understand the comments more thoroughly

.

Mr. Nizich then asked if API representatives could give examples of specific situations that

occur i n their industry related to relocation so that EPA could better understand the ir issue

.

Mr. Rao explained that the relocation provisions in the rule applied to relocation of an entire

source rather than individual equipment. It’s our understanding that API had presumed these

provisions to also apply to individual pieces of equipment.
No. 96-5569.

#### McCullough *v.*Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 96-7801.

#### Miller *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ __________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

October 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly
129166 & (94) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices
PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, SC: 129166

v CoA: 248778 Muskegon CC: 87-23270-CK CORDOVA CHEMICAL COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, AEROJET GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendants Cross-Plaintiffs-Appellants and

CRANFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Cross-Defendant-Appellee.

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signe d by the atto rneys for the parties agreeing to the dismissa l of the application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is considered and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the applications for leave to appeal are DI SMISSED with prejudi ce and without costs.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2005
Clerk
#### Eliza TURNER and Willie Bean v. The PARISH OF JEFFERSON, through the DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION, Houma Motels, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn Holidome, ABC Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company.

No. 98-C-2861.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

*639In re Jefferson Parish of Etal; Recreation Department of; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 98-CA-0336; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 490-569.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.

VICTORY and TRAYLOR, JJ„ would grant the writ.
# C_2017392EN.01001901.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Ben Ali v Council

(Case T-149/15) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Legal basis - Reinclusion of the applicant’s name on the basis of new grounds - Obligation to state reasons - Factual basis - Right to property - Proportionality))

(2017/C 392/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sirine Bent Zine El Abidine Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by: S. Maktouf, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and G. Étienne, and subsequently by Á. de Elera San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/157 of 30 January 2015 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2015 L 26, p. 29) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/147 of 30 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2015 L 26, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sirine Bent Zine El Abidine Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sirine Bent Zine El Abidine Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

1

---
We a r e t r a n s m i tt i n g t o yo u v i a t h e A RB F T P S e r v e r t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e E x c e p t i o n a l E v e n t s do c

u m e n t f o r 1

- H o ur

O z o n e E x c

ee d a n c e s f o r t h e S a cr a m e n t o R e g i on

, a l on g w

i t h a ll o f t h e a pp e nd i c

e s

. T h i s do c

u m e n t p r o v i d e s a n upd a t e t o ou r o r i g i n a l E x c e p t i ona l E v

e n t s d o c u m e n t s ub m i tt e d i n S

e p t e m b e r o f 2

0 0 9

. P le a s e d o no t h e s

i t a t e t o

c on t a c t u s i f y o u h a v e a n y qu e s

t i o n s

.

F T P

. A R B.c

a

. g ov / p ub / ou t g o i n g / E PA K a te

G a y l e M

. Sw e i g e rt

M a n a g e r

, A i r Q u a l i t y A na l y s i s S e c ti on

A i r R e s o u r c es B o a rd ( 9 16 ) 3 22

- 6 923

F i n a l EE D o c um e n t

S w e i g e r t

, G a y l e @ A R B

t o :

K a t h e r i n e H o a g , M a tt h e w L a k i n , M a g l i a n o

, K a r e n @ A RB

03 / 30 / 2011 03 : 40 P M

C c :

" B R I G ETTE T O LL S T R U P ( B T O LL S T R U P @ a i r qu a li t y

. o r g) "

, " C H A R LE S AND E R S ON
( C A n d e r s o n @ a i r qu a li t y

. o r g) "

H i d e D e t a i l s

F r om : "S w e i g e r t

, G a y l e @ A R B " <g s w e i g e r @ a r b

. ca

. go v>

T o : K a t h e r i n e H o a g / R 9 / U S E P A/U S @ E P A

, M a tt h e w L a k i n / R 9 /U S E P A/ U S @ E P A

,

" M a g l i a n o

, K a r e n @ A R B " < k m a g li a n @ a r b

. ca

. go v>

C c : " B R I G ETTE T O LL S T R U P ( B T O LL S T R U P @ a i r qu a li t y

. o r g) "

< B T O LL S T R U P @ a i r qu a li t y

. o r g>

, " C H A R LE S AND E R S ON ( C A n d e r s o n @ a i r qu a l i t y

. o r g) "

< C A n d e r s o n @ a i r qu a l it

y

. o r g>

H i s t o r y : T h i s m e ss a g e h a s b ee n r e p li e d t o

.
Exhibit 23.2

LOGO

January 28, 2010

Mr. Richard M. Grubel

Senior Vice President

The PBSJ Corporation

2001 NW 107thAvenue

Miami, FL 33172

Consent of Independent Appraisal Firm

We hereby consent to the reference to Matheson Financial Advisors, Inc. and to the incorporation of information contained in our Valuation Report dated
January 11, 2010 in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The PBSJ Corporation for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, to which this consent is an exhibit.

Respectfully,



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|MATHESON FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC.
|                                 
|LOGO                             
|                                 
|Colvin T. Matheson, CFA          
|Managing Director                

1313 Dolley Madison
Blvd., Suite 305, McLean, VA 22101

ph.703.760.9120fx.703.760.9121    www.mathesonadvisors.com
### Preliminary report on the Jo Reynolds area, Lawson-Dumont district, Clear Creek County, Colorado

By: Jack Edward HarrisonB. F. Leonard

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir213

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
(Reap. Dec. 9456)

#### Aaron Machinery Co., Inc., Lep Transport, Inc. v. United States

Entry Nos. 821472-1/3; 735075; 712106.

(Decided June 9, 1959)

Plaintiffs not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*674Lawrence, Judge:

The records indicate that there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiffs when the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached to and made part of this decision were called for hearing, and the cases were consequently ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the records in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00014-CV

STONEBROOK SNF, LLC d/b/a Stonebrook Manor at Broadway,

Appellant

v.

Trini GONZALES as Next Friend for Natividad Gonzalez, an Adult,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CI10104

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 13, 2011

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion states the parties have 

agreed that the costs of appeal shall be taxed against the party who incurred them. The motion 

contains a certificate of service to appellee, who has not opposed the motion. Therefore, we grant 

the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Costs of appeal are taxed against

the party who incurred them. See id. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9317]



[[Page 27549]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ07-1-001]


East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

May 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 27, 2007, East Kentucky Power 
Cooperative, Inc. filed tariff modifications to its open access 
transmission tariff, pursuant to the Commission's March 28, 2007 order.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88cecddacbc7e6e4e1e6eddbfdf8f8e7fafcc8eeedfaeba6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e0a6a5b2a3af8e8c898e85b39590908f9294a086859283ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 18, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9317 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Eddie Cuadrado, Appellant, v Robert M. Morgenthau, as District Attorney, Respondent.

[699 NYS2d 367]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered May 27, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application to compel respondent District Attorney to provide access to certain records under the Freedom of Information Law, and dismissed the petition, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to direct that respondent conduct a diligent search for records sought under Requests *4;*6 and 7, and to direct that respondent determine the existence of any records sought under Requests 9, 10 and 11 not already provided, as set forth herein, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Respondent does not sustain his burden of showing that he has diligently searched for the vouchers, videotape and the write-ups petitioner seeks under Requests 4, 6 and 7 *(see, Matter of Key v Hynes,*205 AD2d 779, 781). Respondent should search the file of Spiro Varsos, for whom petitioner was convicted of committing murder, and should also represent how he stores videotapes. Nor does respondent specifically deny the existence of or otherwise specifically justify his refusal to disclose records sought under Requests 9, 10 and 11 *(see, Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz,*47 NY2d 567, 571; *Matter of Mantica v New York State Dept. of Health, 94*NY2d 58). Accordingly, respondent is also directed to determine whether such records exist, and, if they do, to either provide them to petitioner or indicate why they are exempt. We have considered and rejected petitioner’s other claims. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.