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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136940 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

STACY J. SAZIMA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136940 

 COA: 281855 

WCAC: 06-000269 

SHEPHERD BAR & RESTAURANT and 

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2008 order 

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

November 19, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., on whether to grant the application or take other 

peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address 

whether the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission is contrary to 

Simkins v General Motors Corp (After Remand), 453 Mich 703, 723 (1996). The parties 

may file supplemental briefs no later than November 12, 2008, on that issue. They 

should not submit mere restatements of their application papers. 

1014 

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. 

October 17, 2008 

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDUEL CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON PAGES 2 THROUGH 9 OF THE
COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             277
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1348
<ALLOWANCES>                                        43
<INVENTORY>                                       1526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3447
<PP&E>                                            5764
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4882
<BONDS>                                           3101
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        351
<COMMON>                                           779
<OTHER-SE>                                        1700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12375
<SALES>                                           1794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1794
<CGS>                                             1418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1551
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     9
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  93
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     60
<INCOME-TAX>                                        28
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 30
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        30
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21<F1><F2>
<FN>
<F1>The EPS-Primary amount represents Basic Earnings Per Share and the EPS-
Diluted amount represents Diluted Earnings Per Share in accordance with
the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, Earnings Per Share.
<F2>First quarter 1999 Diluted EPS is the same as Basic EPS due to the
antidilutive effect from the assumed conversion of convertible preferred
stock and the addback of preferred dividends.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Eddie HAMMONDS, Appellant, v. The BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORPORATION and Grace H. Dansby et al., Appellees.

No. T-420.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 9, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 6, 1973.

Thomas W. Brown, Brannon, Brown, Norris, Vocelle & Haley, Lake City, and MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellant.

Byron Butler, Perry, John E. Mathews, Jr., Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, William M. Barr and Paul E. Raymond, Raymond, Wilson, Karl, Conway & Barr, Daytona Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

*On Petition for Rehearing*

PER CURIAM.

Petition for Rehearing denied without prejudice to appellant to apply to the trial court for an injunction in view of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Hammonds v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 285 So.2d 7, opinion filed October 10, 1973.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (commission file No. 33-51584), on Form S-8 (commission
file No. 33-68890), and on Form S-8 (commission file No. 333-28571) of our
reports dated February 15, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Appliance Recycling Centers of
America, Inc., and Subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 29, 2001.






McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 22, 2002
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
RR AFM AN KOC I, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 12-70998 Age n c y No. A075-682-288
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, GILM AN, *** and WARDLAW , C i rc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED DEC 14 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R ona ld Le e Gilm a

n , Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U .S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc u it, sitting by de signa tion.R

ra fm an Koc i, a

native and c itiz e n of Alba nia , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ s (B IA) de nia l of his third mo t ion to re ope n. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1), an d we de ny the pe tition. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Koc i’ s third m otion to
re ope n . Ordina

rily , “ a pa rty m ay file only one m o tion to re ope n de p ortat ion or
e xc lusion proc e e dings . . . a nd tha t m otion m

ust be file d no la

te r tha n 90 da y s a fte r the d a te on whic h the fina l a dm inistra tive de c ision wa s re nde re d . . . .” 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2). A sta

tutory e xc e p tion is a

va ila ble , howe ve r, if the pe titione r pre se nts
e vide nc e tha

t is “ m a te ria l a

nd wa s not a

va ila ble and c o uld not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d or pre se nte d at the pre vious he aring.” Id. § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii). Koc i’ s third m otion to re ope n is both untim e ly and suc c e ssive
. M ore ove r, Koc i ha s fa ile d to de m o nstra te a m a te ria l c ha

nge of c onditions in Alba n ia that would e ntitle him

to the sta tutory e xc e ption. Thepublic a tion of our 2008
m e m o randum d i sposition on the Inte rne t is not m a te ria l to Koc i’ s a pplic a tion for
re lie f be c a

u se Koc i ha s not de m onstra te d tha t the public ation inc re a se d his risk of ha rm in Alba nia
. Nor a

re the ne ws a

rtic le s atta c he d to Koc i’ s m otion m a te ria l. Although they

de m onstra

te tha t te nsions be twe e n de m oc ra ts a nd soc ia lists
c ontinue , the y

do not e sta

b lish a m a te ria l c ha

nge in Alba

nia . Eve n m ore im porta ntly , howe ve r, Koc i ha s not pre se nte d e vide nc e tha t ne g a te s the
2Im

m i gra tion Judge ’ s initia l a dve rse c re dibility finding, whic h we a ffirm e d in a prior a ppe a l. K oc i v . Muk

ase y , 270 F. App’ x 644 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

3
#### Carol Ann PINKSTON, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellee.

No. 70-1052.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 15, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

AFS

- 11

- 320

- P March 20, 2014

Mr. Craig P. J. Wheel

205 Catalina Drive Newark, DE 19711

Dear Mr. Wheel :

This is in response to your May 12 , 2011

, petition to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), for revision to § 61.51(f)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. Your petition requested that the FAA revise § 61.51 (f)(2) to allow for a pilot to log

second in command (SIC) flight time when performing SIC functions as an “assigned flight crewmember” in part 91 operations.

W hen the FAA responds to petitions for rul emaking, it must follow the requirements of

14 CFR p art 11, particularly those guidelines for processing petitions for rulemaking found in § 11.73. As stated in that section, the FAA uses the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) the immediacy of the safety or security concerns the petition raises; 2) the priority of other FAA issues; and 3) the resources we have available to address these issues.

While your petition doe s not meet the criteria for consideration at this time, we offer the following as background on this issue. The FAA has consistently denied exemption requests that would allow airmen to log SIC flight time in an aircraft that do not require an SIC by eith er the aircraft type certificate or by an operating rule. The FAA continues to support this position in order to maintain the integrity of the higher level airman certification and rating requirements. Specifically, airline transport pilot (ATP) applican ts can c redit SIC time toward the pilot in command (PIC) flight time requirements found in the applicable sections of part 61, subpart G. The FAA maintains the determination that serving as a second pilot in operations conducted under part 91

, when an SIC is not required by the regulations, would not provide an equivalent quality of aeronautical experience that is allowed to be logged under § 61.51(f).2 The FAA notes, however, that it is acceptable for the second pilot to log PIC flight time for any time that the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls and is appropriately rated in the aircraft; reference § 61.51(e)(1)(i).

For the reasons stated earlier and in accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73

, we will take no

further action on your petition for rule making

. Accordingly, Docket No

. FAA

- 2011

- 0526 is being closed

.

Sincerely,

/s/

John Bar b a gallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standard s Service
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                    SUMMARY OF DIVISION MANAGEMENT BONUS PLAN

      Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. (the "COMPANY") has established a division
management bonus plan for the management of the Company's brand divisions and
selected employees who work in the brand divisions. The plan provides for a
bonus pool for each brand division equal to a percentage of the actual net
contribution to the Company's operating earnings by the division. The bonus pool
is available only if a minimum target net contribution is achieved by the
division for the fiscal year.

      The applicable bonus pool percentage and minimum target net contribution
amount is set each year by the Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors. Individual participants, in addition to the brand managers, and
specific bonus awards made out of the applicable bonus pool, are determined each
year by management and the respective brand managers.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20645

Summary Calendar

NICK ALFRED AGUILAR,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-3278

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Nick Alfred Aguilar, Texas prisoner # 324831, on 

parole from an enhanced life sentence for possession of heroin, challenges the 

dismissal of his pro se civil-rights complaint against the State of Texas. In the 

complaint, he claimed his incarceration (of a heroin addict) violated the Eighth 

Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because the 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20645 Document: 00513151281 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2015
No. 14-20645

2

State acted with deliberate indifference. A dismissal for failure to state a claim 

is reviewed de novo. E.g., Varela v. Gonzales, 773 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Aguilar’s contention, that the Attorney General of Texas lacked standing 

to file the motion to dismiss his complaint, fails because, under Texas law, the 

Texas Attorney General serves as the common legal representative of State 

agencies. E.g., Sierra Club v. City of San Antonio, 115 F.3d 311, 314 (5th Cir. 

1997). 

Aguilar neither recognizes nor challenges the district court’s conclusions 

that his complaint was barred by the Eleventh Amendment and Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Accordingly, he has abandoned any challenge

to those conclusions. E.g., Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, Aguilar’s reliance on Robinson v. 

California, 370 U.S. 660, 666-67 (1962), is misplaced because he was not 

convicted under Texas law based on his use of heroin, but because he possessed 

it. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-20645 Document: 00513151281 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2015
SERVED: March 7, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

In The Matter Of: 

NORTHEASTERN 

AVIATION CORPORATION 

Respondent 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0206 

Case No. 2011EA110045 

ORDER SETTING 

SECOND PRE-HEARING STATUS CONFERENCE 

On June 18, 2015, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures ("Order") was filed. 

Among other things, this Order set a telephone Motion/Pre-Hearing Status Conference for 

Monday, March 7, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. Eastern time. 

On March 7, 2016, the parties appeared by.telephone for a Pre-Hearing Status 

Conference. During this Conference, the parties agreed to privately confer about the case, and 

then appear for a second Pre-Hearing Status Conference on Tuesday, March 22, 2016. This 

order codifies the parties' March 7, 2016 agreement and the Court's oral rulings. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205, and having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and 

motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. .The parties shall privately confer by telephone about the status of the case and possible 

settlement on March 18, 2016 at 3 :00 p.m. Eastern time. The FAA shall initiate the 

telephone call. 

2. The parties shall appear by telephone for a Second Pre-Hearing Status Conference on 

Tuesday, March 22,2016, at 2:30p.m. Eastern time. To access the Court's conference 

line, the parties shall call202-493-2343. 
3. For clarifications of this Order or questions with regard to the procedures to be 

followed in this case, please contact Mrs. Rachel Brown, Judicial Staff Assistant, at the 

Office ofHearings (202-366-2132). 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 2 of2 
Docket No. FAA-2015-0206 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

. Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Ms. Camille J. Castillo 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Northeast Team 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3278 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. Edward J. Longosz, II 

Ms. Evelyn D. Sahr 

Respondent's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Eckert, Seamans, Cherin, & Mellot, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

TEL: 202-659-6619 I 202-659-6622 

FAX: 202-659-6699 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Room Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

, 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 29, 2016 

# Order

July 2 9 , 2016

15 3 919 & (38)(39)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

,

v

ROBERT FRANCIS HANLEY,

Defendant

- Appell ant

. SC: 15 3 919

COA: 32 5216

Delta CC: 1 4

- 00 8929

- FH

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of defendant

- appellant for immediate

consideration and to dismiss his application for leave to appeal are GRANTED. The

application is hereby DISMISSED.
##### 



Exhibit 99.3

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 Annual Report of Swift Transportation Co., Inc.
(the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I,
Gary Enzor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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.

/s/ Gary R. Enzor

Gary R. Enzor
Chief Financial Officer
March 26, 2003
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc., (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 10-Q Report), that:

(1) the 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

The undersigned have executed this Certification effective as of May 15,
2007.



/s/ Cathy B. TaylorCathy B. TaylorPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Kenneth WolfKenneth WolfChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Phoenix
Footwear Group, Inc. and will be retained by Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-85173) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-72949) on Form S-8 of CIB Marine Bancshares,
Inc. of our report dated February 9, 2001, except for the fifth paragraph of
note 4, which is as of March 6, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31, 2000, and 1999, and the
related consolidated statements of earnings, retained earnings, and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which
report appears in the December 31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of CIB
Marine Bancshares, Inc.


KPMG, LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 27, 2001
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/05/2010 10:29 AM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|08/05/2010 09:58 AM

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|Additional Interagency Comments on RICE

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Melanie,

Attached are additional interagency comments I’ve received on RICE.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Cortney

(See attached file:

InteragencyWorkingCommentsonEPA_RICE_SI_EO12866Review_08052010.pdf)
#### Oliver PERKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-783.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Dec. 19, 1969.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; Warren H. Edwards, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.