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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 131553 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131553 COA: 268711 Berrien CC: 2005-400333-FH ALEX SCHEWE, 2005-400334-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 5, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1023 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 31, 2006

Clerk
# C_2013046EN.01001201.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Svidník (Slovakia) lodged on 19 October 2012 — Pohotovosť, s.r.o. v Miroslav Vašuta

(Case C-470/12)

2013/C 46/21

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Okresný súd Svidník

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pohotovosť, s.r.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Miroslav Vašuta

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 38 thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as Paragraph 37(1) and (3) of the Exekučný poriadok, which does not allow a consumer protection association to intervene in enforcement proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 38 thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as Paragraph 37(1) and (3) of the Exekučný poriadok, which does not allow a consumer protection association to intervene in enforcement proceedings?

1

| 2. | Where the answer to the first question is that that legislation does not conflict with Community law, is Paragraph 37(1) and (3) of the Exekučný poriadok to be interpreted as not precluding the national court from granting a consumer protection association leave to intervene in enforcement proceedings in accordance with Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 8 [of Council Directive 93/13/EEC]? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where the answer to the first question is that that legislation does not conflict with Community law, is Paragraph 37(1) and (3) of the Exekučný poriadok to be interpreted as not precluding the national court from granting a consumer protection association leave to intervene in enforcement proceedings in accordance with Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 8 [of Council Directive 93/13/EEC]?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

1

---
### •• ,Adams, Kevin 

## (OSn From: 

### Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:
HiAll, Adams, Kevin (OST) Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:47 PM Waterloo, Airport Manager, Bradley Hagen; Waterloo, Mayor, Buck Clark 'Livsey, Will' Request for Comment at Waterloo AA, Proposal atALO,pdf

Attached above isthe one timely-filed proposal for Essential Air Service lEAS)at Waterloo, submitted by American Airlines, in response to Order 2013-11-3. We are currently reviewing that proposal. The attached proposal isdirectly from the carrier and will soon be reflected in the Docket, which you may accessthrough Regulations.gov at DOT-OST2011-0132, along with other pertinent information on this proceeding
.. The next step in the carrier-selection process isfor'you to provide uswith your community's comments, acritically important element in our carrier-selection decision, especially the comments of civic officials. Accordingly, Iaskthat everyone get back to us, preferably byemail, no later than January 6, 2014. We will docket this email, aswell asany replies. In brief, look at the proposal, and if you have any questions, call me, and get backto us bythe deadline, January 6, 2014. Best,
Kevin Adams 202-366-1047

1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. NJ07-1-001] 

      ( print page 27549)    
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                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0707

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JUSTIN PHILLIP HOOVER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 12, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 2 2020

07/02/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0707
#### Michael E. SPIESS, Jack K. Hardy and Benjamin F. Rountree, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. C. ITOH & COMPANY (AMERICA), INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 79-2382.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.* Unit A

Dec. 9, 1981.

Certiorari Dismissed Jan. 5, 1982.

See 102 S.Ct. 984.

Fulbright & Jaworski, Joe P. Martin, Neil Martin, Nancy Morrison O’Connor, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Porter & Clements, Edward John O’Neill, Jr., Charles E. Humphrey, Jr., Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Lutz Alexander Prager, E.E.O.C., Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae.

*481Before BROWN, AINSWORTH **, CHARLES CLARK, GEE, RUBIN, GARZA, REAVLEY, POLITZ, RANDALL, TATE, SAM D. JOHNSON, WILLIAMS and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.

*

 Former Fifth Circuit case, Section 9(1) of Public Law 96-452 — October 14, 1980.

**

 Because of illness, Judge Ainsworth did not participate in the consideration of this order.

BY THE COURT:

In light of the grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States in *Avigliano v. Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc.,*- U.S. ——, 102 S.Ct. 501, 70 L.Ed.2d 377, and *Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avigliano,*- U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1420, 71 L.Ed.2d 644, it is ordered that the order of this court requiring the above styled cause to be reheard en banc, 654 F.2d 302, is vacated and the opinion of the panel dated the 24th day of April, 1981, 643 F.2d 353, is reinstated.
34204.

#### SELLERS v. SELLERS.

Submitted November 3, 1978

Decided December 5, 1978.

*Fortson, Bentley & Griffin, Herbert T. Hutto,*for appellant.

*Watson, Brown, Foster & Keller, Larry A. Foster,*for appellee.

Per curiam.

This is an appeal in a domestic relations case tried before the judge without a jury. The divorce was granted on the ground that the marriage was irretrievably broken, and the husband was ordered to pay the wife the sum of $400 per month for three months, then $300 per month for five months and after that time the husband’s obligation to pay alimony ceases.

The appellant contends the trial court erred in finding that she was capable of working and maintaining employment and that the award of alimony is inconsistent with the wife’s needs and husband’s ability to pay. We disagree and affirm. See *Odom v. Odom,*239 Ga. 830 (239 SE2d 20) (1977).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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 quarterly report of Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William C. Robinson, CEO, Chairman and Principal Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.

                               CYBER DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INC.


                               By: /s/ William C. Robinson
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   William C. Robinson
                                   CEO, Chairman and Principal Executive Officer

                                   June 22, 2006
Exhibit
10.39





ADDENDUM
TO EMPLOYMENT AND NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT





This
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AND
NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT (this "Addendum"), dated as
of February 18, 2008, is between The Sheridan Group, Inc., a Maryland
corporation (the "Employer"), and Joan
B. Davidson (the "Employee")
(collectively, “the Parties”).





WHEREAS, the Parties entered
into an Employment and Non-Competition Agreement (the “Agreement”) on or about
April 1, 2007; and





WHEREAS, a question has arisen
between the Parties with respect to the application and duration of §§6(e), 7, 8
and 9 of the Agreement; and





WHEREAS, the Parties wish to
enter into this Addendum to clarify their intent and eliminate any ambiguity
with respect to §§6(e), 7, 8 and 9 of the Agreement; and





WHEREAS, it is the intent of
the Parties that all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue to
remain in full force and effect, subject to the clarification set forth in this
Addendum.





NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby
agreed as follows:





1.           The
above recitals are incorporated herein by reference, and are intended to be
binding upon the Parties.





2.           The
Parties acknowledge and agree that it is the mutual intent of the Parties that
the Employee’s rights and remedies upon termination set forth in §6(e) of the
Agreement apply to the termination at anytime of
Employee’s employment by the Employer (and/or the Employer’s successors and/or
assigns) without Cause pursuant to §6(c) or by the Employee with Good Reason
pursuant to §6(d).  Moreover, it is the Parties’ specific intent that
the Employee’s rights and remedies upon termination set forth in §6(e) will
survive the termination of the Agreement.





3.           The
Parties acknowledge and agree that it is the mutual intent of the Parties that
the Employee’s obligations to the Employer (and/or the Employer’s successors
and/or assigns) set forth in §7 (Inventions; Assignment); §8 (Confidential
Information); and §9 (Non-Competition) of the Agreement apply to the termination
at any timeof Employee’s employment with Employer (and/or the Employer’s successors
and/or assigns). Moreover, it is the Parties’ specific intent that the
Employee’s obligations to the Employer set forth in §7, §8 and §9 will survive
the termination of the Agreement.





4.           The
Parties each acknowledge and agree that this Addendum is supported by the
consideration set forth in the Agreement, which the Parties acknowledge to be
good and valuable.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and
intending to be legally bound hereby, the Parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed as of the date and year first above
written.





THE SHERIDAN GROUP,
      INC.By:
            /s/JohnA.SaxtonJohn A. SaxtonPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/JoanB.DavidsionJoan B. Davidson
No. 74-5823.

#### Martin *v.*United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Unigraphics Solutions Inc.

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-57485, 333-75975, 333-75979, 333-90641, 333-33384, 333-33386)
of Unigraphics Solutions Inc. of our report dated January 30, 2001, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Unigraphics Solutions Inc. and Subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity/net investment and comprehensive income, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2000, and the related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2000
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Unigraphics Solutions Inc.



                                                           KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 27, 2001
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EL PASO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, 

LTD., d/b/a LAS PALMAS MEDICAL 

CENTER,

 Appellant,

v.

LAURA MURPHY,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00285-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2004-2844) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, both in this Court and the court below, for which let execution issue. We therefore dismiss 

the appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Parks, Judge

Parks, Judge (Sitting by assignment)(Not Participating)
No. 48724.

#### Protests 618647-G, etc., of Uddo Taormina Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 42146 the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, allowing 21⁄2 percent in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings.
#### Maurice Levy *v.*United States

No. 6147.

Invoice dated London, England, May 20, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 25, 1942.

Entry No. 756206.

(Decided May 10, 1945)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation of counsel for tbe parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the issues in the instant appeal to reappraisement are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.,*on March 5, 1945, Suit No. 4481, C. A. D. 305, and that the record in said case be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the entered value of the merchandise here involved is equal to the cost of materials and fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of exportation of the involved merchandise which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production thereof in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (not less than 10 per centum of such cost) in the case of such or similar merchandise, plus the cost of all containers and-coverings, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and plus an addition for profit (not less than 8 per centum of the costs of materials and fabrication or manipulation and general expenses) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added to the cost of merchandise of the same general character by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the instant case be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of the value of tbe merchandise here involved, and that such values are tbe entered values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
34219.

#### SHERRARD v. SHERRARD.

Hill, Justice.

The wife filed suit for divorce on March 1, 1978, seeking alimony for herself and child support for her 17-year-old son. A hearing was held on April 18, and on May 1 an order was entered awarding the wife $250 per month as temporary alimony. The son became 18 on July 17,1978. The divorce was granted on motion on July 25, 1978, and pursuant to reservation in the divorce judgment a temporary order was entered on that date continuing in effect the order of May 1, 1978, which had ordered the father to pay the former wife $250 per month as alimony, and, in addition, ordering the father to pay to the son, until further order of the court, $300 per month for the son’s college expenses. The stated basis of the trial court’s decision as to college expenses was that the father had agreed at the hearings on April 18 and July 25 that he would pay his son $300 per month for his college expenses. The father appeals so much of the order as requires him to pay college expenses. We reverse.

In *Clavin v. Clavin,*238 Ga. 421, 422 (233 SE2d 151) (1977), we held that "A requirement to provide child support beyond the age of majority may not, as a matter of law, be imposed . . . That part of the decree requiring the payment by the father of support beyond the child’s *612majority is unenforceable and must be stricken.”

Submitted November 3, 1978

Decided November 22, 1978.

*Smith & Allgood, Douglas E. Smith,*for appellant.

*Martha J. Kuckleburg,*for appellee.

On the other hand, in *McClain v. McClain,*235 Ga. 659 (221 SE2d 561) (1975), we held that where the parties enter into an agreement to provide child support beyond the age of minority and that agreement is approved by the court and made part of the divorce decree, the obligation to pay child support for an adult child is binding and enforceable by contempt.

The question presented here is whether the father’s statement in court that he would pay his son’s college education takes this case out of the rule of the *Clavin*case, supra, and puts it into the rule in *McClain,*supra.

One of the considerations which underlay the *McClain*decision was that the parties had negotiated and contracted for post minority child support. One of the parties may have forgone other rights so as to secure the funds for an education for the child. The agreement was enforceable as an agreement of the parties by suit on the contract and the real issue was whether it would be enforced by contempt. In the case now before us there was no quid pro quo for the college expense obligation and no agreement of the parties enforceable by suit for breach. The rationale for *McClain v. McClain,*supra, is not present here and thus *Clavin v. Clavin,*supra, is applicable.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
(LOGO) CHASE

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation
3415 Vision Drive
Columbus, OH 43219
1-800-848-9136 Customer Service
1-800-582-0542 TDD / Text Telephone

Ms. Kimberly J. Wiggins
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N. A.
Attn: Master Servicing Department
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562

RE: Annual Certification

Dear Ms. Wiggins:


Pursuant to the servicing  agreement,  the undersigned  Officer certifies to the
following:

a) All hazard (or mortgage  impairment,  if applicable)  flood or other casualty
insurance and primary mortgage guaranty insurance premiums, taxes, ground rents,
assessments and other changes have been paid by/in connection with the Mortgaged
Properties;

b) All property inspections have been completed;

c) Compliance relative to Adjustable Rate Mortgages have been met;

d) Compliance with IRS Foreclosure  reporting regulations enacted as IRS Section
6060J by the  Deficit  Reduction  Act,  regarding  Acquired  and/or  Abandonment
property have been completed;

e) All loans CMMC  services  in state that have  statutes  requiring  payment of
interest on escrow/impound accounts have been completed;

f) That such  officer  has  confirmed  that the  Fidelity  Bond,  the Errors and
Omissions  Insurance Policy, and any other bonds required under the terms of the
Servicing Agreement are in full force and effect.

g) Enclosed is a copy of our most recent independent audit statement.


CERTIFIED BY:
Lucy P.Gambino
Vice President
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation
3415 Vision Drive
Columbus, OH 43219

DATE: March 26, 1999

S:/rishare/offcert.doc