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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

July 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

136933 (7) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

GRADY ZODIAC BROWN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136933 

 COA: 285762 

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 pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $38.00, 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 

$337.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

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

jm 

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

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

July 24, 2008 

Clerk
# C_2012311EN.01000701.xml

| 13.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia per l’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

(Case C-376/12)

2012/C 311/08

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sky Italia Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia per l’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20 EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).

1

---
### Surface water supply of the United States 1961–65: Part 3. Ohio River Basin; Volume 2. Ohio River Basin From Kanawha River to Louisville, Kentucky

By: Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1908

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

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.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1693-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-1693-DR), dated April 25, 2007, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

April 23, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective April 23, 2007. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E7-9258 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### Kenneth C. YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-01811.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 14, 1999.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Douglas S. Connor, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee and William I. Munsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for burglary of a conveyance and robbery. We find no merit in Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in instructing the jury with the standard burglary instruction and affirm his conviction without further discussion. We do, however, agree with his contention that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender.

After Appellant was found guilty, the trial court sentenced him within the sentencing guidelines to concurrent terms of imprisonment of sixty months for the burglary and 72.2 months for the robbery to be followed by five years’ probation. The trial judge signed the judgment and sentence, and Appellant was removed from the courtroom and taken to the local jail to await transport to the Department of Corrections. Thereafter, another assistant state attorney appeared before the trial court and requested that Appellant be brought back to the courtroom because the State had intended to seek a habitual offender sentence. The trial judge ultimately agreed, Appellant was brought back before the court, and after the introduction of the necessary documents, Appellant was resentenced to concurrent terms of ten and thirty years’ incarceration. This was clearly error.

Resentencing on the same charge is a violation of double jeopardy. *See Troupe v. Rowe,*283 So.2d 857 (Fla.1973); *Hinton v. State,*446 So.2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Here, Appellant’s case was completed and he had begun serving his sentence at the time the second assistant state attorney asked that Appellant be re*491turned to the courtroom and resentenced as a habitual offender. Because Appellant’s guidelines sentence was legal, jeopardy had attached and his sentence could not thereafter be increased. *See Troupe.*

Accordingly, Appellant’s habitual offender sentences are vacated, and the case is remanded for reinstatement of the original guidelines sentence.

THREADGILL and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur.
# C_2012287EN.01002501.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret lodged on 16 July 2012 — Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser v Manova A/S

(Case C-336/12)

2012/C 287/47

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser

Applicant:

Defendant: Manova A/S

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the EU law principle of equal treatment mean that a contracting authority, following expiry of the time-limit for applying to take part in a tendering procedure, may not obtain information required in the call for tenders concerning a tenderer’s most recent published balance sheet, when the tenderer in question did not provide such a balance sheet in its application for pre-qualification?

---
No. 96-5850.

#### Mercer, aka Williams *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Mobility of Molders and Coremakers, 1940-1952: A Study of the Work Experience, Training, and Personal Characteristics of Workers in a Skilled Occupation

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Mobility of Molders and Coremakers, 1940-1952: A Study of the Work Experience, Training, and Personal Characteristics of Workers in a Skilled Occupation : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1162*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1954,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4473,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Before the Second Division,

November 30, 1945

No. 50730.

#### Protest 101318-K of Woodward & Lothrop (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showred that certain items of the merchandise consist of outerwear 'woolen articles, valued at more than $5 per pound, similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of Abstract 50303. Upon the established facts and following the cited authority the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 9.2

                                                                       EXHIBIT G

             AMENDMENT TO MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS VOTING TRUST AGREEMENT

              EXTENSION OF TERM OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS' VOTING TRUST

         The Major Stockholders' Voting Trust, under a Trust Agreement (the
"Agreement") dated as of June 2, 1990 as amended April 3, 1991 and May 30, 1991,
holding shares of Capital Stock of Campbell Soup Company, by its terms will
terminate on June 1, 2000, under Section 2 of the Agreement.

         The undersigned, being all of the Representatives as defined in Section
7 of the Agreement, hereby agree to amend the Agreement under Section 17, so
that the Trust will continue in existence and terminate on June 1, 2003.

Dated: March 2, 2000

                                        /s/   Dorrance H. Hamilton
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                Dorrance H. Hamilton
                                              Representative of Hamilton
                                              Group and Trustee

                                        /s/   Hope H. van Beuren
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                 Hope H. van Beuren
                                              Representative of van Beuren Group


      AGREED TO:

      /s/   Charles H. Mott
          --------------------------
              Charles H. Mott
            Trustee

      /s/   John A. van Beuren
          --------------------------
              John A. van Beuren
            Trustee
# C_2017095EN.01001001.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors

(Case T-688/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2011 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 - Rejection of the action at first instance, after its referral back by the General Court, as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded - Prospect of promotion))

(2017/C 095/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Auditors (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and B. Schäfer, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2015, Schönberger v Court of Auditors (F-14/12 RENV, EU:F:2015:112), and seeking to have that order set aside.

Schönberger

Court of Auditors

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Declares that Mr P. Schönberger is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Court of Auditors in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr P. Schönberger is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Court of Auditors in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

1

---
#### Luis Esteban CHICO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 99-743.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 21, 1999.

Luis Esteban Chico, Lake City, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Luis Esteban Chico appeals the order entered by the trial court summarily denying his *pro se*and unsworn “Petition for Nunc Pro Tunc,” which in substance appears to be an unsworn motion to correct his sentence. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). We affirm.

*520In his motion Mr. Chico alleged that, upon violation of his probation, the trial court resentenced him to a term of 7 years’ imprisonment and orally granted him credit for the years he had served on his original sentence. However, upon entering DOC custody, he was allegedly informed that the 4]6 year credit “orally assured by both the judge and the state attorney” was void.

Mr. Chico requested the trial court to grant him “specific performance,” asking the court “to stand by the orally pronounced sentence [he] was originally given.” The trial court correctly denied this claim for postconviction relief.

It may well be that Mr. Chico’s written sentence does not accurately reflect the trial court’s oral disposition. However, such a claim of error is not cognizable pursuant to a rule 3.800(a) proceeding because the alleged error is not apparent on the face of the sentencing documents. *See State v. Mancino,*714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998). Instead, such an error must be raised on direct appeal.

We note that Mr. Chico’s allegations might support a claim that his plea was involuntarily made. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice so that Mr. Chico may file a sworn rule 3.850 motion. However, we observe that the two-year time period for filing a rule 3.850 motion might have already elapsed since Mr. Chico alleges that he was resentenced in March 1997.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ. concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Harry E. Gruber, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer ofKintera, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as anexhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

 

Dated: August 13, 2004

 

 
| /s/ Harry E. Gruber, M.D.             |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Harry E. Gruber, M.D.                 |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided toKintera and will be retained by Kintera and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
exv4w2



 






EXHIBIT 4.2




Independent Auditors’ Consent




The Board of Directors

Bourse de Montréal Inc.




     We consent to the use of our audit report dated January 24, 2007, except as to note 25, which is as
of March 23, 2007, on the consolidated balance sheets of Bourse de Montréal Inc. as at December 31,
2006 and 2005, and the consolidated statements of earnings, retained earnings and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006 incorporated by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-8 of TSX Group Inc. dated January 14, 2008.



/s/  KPMG
LLP

Chartered Accountants




Montréal, Canada

January 14, 2008
No. 96-5941.

#### Duplessis *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Inter-Maritime Fwdg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6497.

Entry No. 712585, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, October 1942, etc.

Certified October 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 23, 1942, etc.

(Decided November 7, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the, determination of the yalue of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.