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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 July 30, 2013

p0722

Order 

Clerk

July 30, 2013

146477

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146477

COA: 311022

Oakland CC: 2009-227243-FH

BARRETT RAY SCHWARZLOSE, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

MCCORMACK, J., not participating because of her prior involvement in this case.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2293 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2293

 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Boltom H2003, H2004, 
                          H2100, H3100, H311.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Boltom H2003, H2004, 
                          H2100, H3100, H311.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BOLTOM H2003, H2004, H2100, H3100, H311.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.95 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Boltom H2003, H2004, H2100, 
H3100, H311) is amended by striking the date in the effective column 
period and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review. **Interagency Comments on U.S.**  **Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft Final Rulemaking “ Regulation**  **of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways under the Renewable**  **Fuel Standard Program; Final Rule Approving Renewable Fuel Pathways for Giant Reed (Arundo Donax) and Napier Grass (Pennisetum Purpureum)**  **,” RIN 2060**  **- AR85** 

 Pg.5

– EPA uses the term “minimize the potential spread”. Mi ght “prevent” be a better term ?  Comment A21 sentence edi t s are a bit confusing. Suggest clarifying the sentence with the phrase “even without the measures that would have otherwise be identified in a Risk Mitigation Plan.”  Pg. 27

– Are the requirements for 80.1450(b)(2) in the redlin e text new recordkeeping requirements e ven for when no RMP is required? Is this also required in the conte xt of international developers? Please clarify
.  Pg. 32 - EPA say s “may” require the financial mechanism for pro ducer if an RMP is required. Would a financial mech anism ever be needed if no RMP is required?  Pg. 34

– Is $25,000 the current amount for daily violations?  P 54 , 80.1450(2)
- states that USDA’s letter goes to the feedstock grower. Is that accurate? We thought the letter would go to EPA. The first sentence also states ‘bases’ when it should be ‘basis’?  Regarding the cases where no risk mitigation plan would be needed, the EPA rule now provides that the information submitted to demonstrate that no risk mitigation plan is needed must result in the same on the groun d effect that would occur if a risk mitigation plan were in place. Wouldn't the fuel producer have to com e up with a mitigation plan to show that one is not needed or is it written this way for foreign growers where the plants may not be invasive ? Why not just require one in all cases and vary what is re quired given the circumstan ces?
EXHIBIT 7

COMPUTATION OF (DEFICIENCY)/SURPLUS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

|                                                  |  | Year ended December 31, |  
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | -
|
|
|Earnings                                          |  |                         |  
|(Loss)/income before income taxes                 |  | (755                    | )
|Interest expense                                  |  | 289                     |  
|                                                  |  |                         |  
|(Loss)/income available for fixed charges         |  | (466                    | )
|                                                  |  |                         |  
|Fixed Charges                                     |  |                         |  
|Interest expense                                  |  | (289                    | )
|                                                  |  |                         |  
|Fixed Charges                                     |  | (289                    | )
|                                                  |  |                         |  
|(Deficiency)/surplus of earnings to fixed charges |  | (755                    | )

---



QuickLinks
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John L. SULLIVAN.

No. 87-KA-0027.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 14, 1988.

In re Frank J. Shea, Judge, Section “G”, Jerome M. Winsberg, Judge, Section “C”, Rudolph F. Becker, III, Judge, Section “E”, Frank A. Marullo, Jr., Judge, Section “D”, Gerard J. Hansen, Judge, Magistrate Court, Dennis J. Waldron, Judge, Section “F”, Miriam G. Waltzer, Judge, Section “A”, Shirley G. Wimberly, Jr., Judge, Section “I”, James F. McKay, III, Judge, Section “H”, Patrick G. Quinlan, Judge, Section “B”, and Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., Judge, Section “J”, applying for recusal of entire Criminal District Court; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, No. 276-394, Section G.

Motion to recuse entire Criminal District Court granted.
# C_2007006EN.01000601.xml

| 11.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4376 — Dresdner Bank/GazprombanK/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 6/11)

On 19 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4376. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4376. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41274 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaint iffAppellee,

versus VALENTIN TORRES-CARDENAS, DefendantAppellant.

------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-99-CR-275-1

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

September 5, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM: *The Assistant Federal Public Defenders (AFPDs) appointed to represent Valentin TorresCardenas on appeal have moved for leave to withdraw from representation of Torres, pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Torres has responded to counsel’s motion, contending that his plea agreement was breached when performance was rendered impossible after he entered his plea due to our opinion in United States v. Monjaras-Castaneda , 190 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 120 S. Ct. 1254 (2000), and that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the district court’s rejection of the Government’s stipulation that was renderedineffect ive by Monjaras-Castaneda . Our independent review of the brief, Torres’s response, and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the AFPDs’ motion to withdraw is GRANTED; the AFPFs are excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2.
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT TELEPHONE: (302) 739 - 9402 SECTION FAX No.: (302) 739 - 3106

CERTIFICATION September 15, 2009 I hereby certify that a public hearing was held August 27,2009, on the StateImplementation PlanforMeeting the Infrastructure Requirements of the Clean AirAct for FineParticulate Matter. The purpose ofthis SIP revision is to detail how Delaware meets all ofthe necessary implementation, maintenance, and enforcement measures required by Clean Air Act ("CAA") Section 11 O(a) and Section 11 0(a)(2) for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate (PM2S) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The effective date ofthis SIP revision is September 1,2009. I further certify that the hearing was held in accordance with the notice required by Subsection 51.102 of40 CFR 51.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Exhibit 10.22


 


Chongqing Rural Commercial Bank


Liquid Capital Loan Contract


 


(Contract No. :  [●])


 


Loaner: Chongqing Rural Commercial
Bank, Beibei Branch


Address: 20 West Beixia Road, Beibei district


Legal representative: Fei Zhang


 


Borrower: Chongqing Penglin
Food Co. Ltd.


Address: 128 Xinyuan Road, Zhenxi Town,
Beiling District, Chongqing City


Legal representative: Zeshu Dai


 


	I.	Loan:


 


	 	1.	Type: Liquid capital loan


 


	 	2.	Purpose: payment to suppliers


 


	 	3.	Currency: RMB.


 


	 	4.	Amount: ¥18,700,000


 


	 	5.	Term: short term


 


	 	6.	Period: 12 months, from December 11, 2018 to December 6, 2019, and is extended for 12 months from December 7, 2019 to November 25, 2020


 


	II.	Loan interest rate, interest calculation and interest settlement:


 


	 	1.	Loan interest rate is calculated pursuant to


 


	Floating rate: Loan interest rate is calculated pursuant to the LPR plus 55bp.


 


	 	2.	Loan Interest Rate shall be settled monthly on the 20th day of each month. The  corresponding day of actual withdrawal date of each month is the interest payment date.


 


	 	3.	If Borrower does not repay the loan on time, and does not cure the delay within 10 days, Borrower is deemed to be at default, and is subject to penalty interest, liquidated damages, and compound interest. Penalty interest is the loan interest plus 50bp.


 


	 	4.	If the loan is used in violation of the purpose of this agreement, the penalty interest will be increased 100bp of the loan interest under this contract.


 


	III.	Guarantee:


 


	 	1.	The guarantee type for performance of this contract is guarantee.


 


	IV.	Repayment of Loan Principal


 


	 	1.	Borrower shall repay $1,000,000 in principal on or before June 30, 2020, $13,000,000 in principal on or before November 25, 2020. Interests shall be settled and paid monthly on the 20th day of each month.


 






     


     


    

 


	V.	Miscellaneous:


 


	 	1.	Any disputes arising from the performance of the contract shall be submitted to the court located in the place where Loaner resides.


 


	 	2.	This contract comes into effect upon execution by legal representative of each party and stamped by both parties.


 


Loaner: /s/Chongqing Rural
Commercial Bank, Beibei Branch


 


Borrower: /s/ Chongqing
Penglin Food Co., Ltd.


 


Execution date: December 5, 2019
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03569

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2205 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2205

     To suspend temporarily the duty on 6-Diazo-5,6-dihydro-5-oxo-
     naphthalene-1-sulfonic acid ester with 2-[Bis(4-hydroxy-2,3,5-
                     trimethylphenyl)methyl]phenol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on 6-Diazo-5,6-dihydro-5-oxo-
     naphthalene-1-sulfonic acid ester with 2-[Bis(4-hydroxy-2,3,5-
                     trimethylphenyl)methyl]phenol.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 6-DIAZO-5,6-DIHYDRO-5-OXO-NAPHTHALENE-1-SULFONIC ACID ESTER 
              WITH 2-[BIS(4-HYDROXY-2,3,5-TRIMETHYLPHENYL)METHYL] 
              PHENOL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      6-Diazo-5,6-        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        dihydro-5-oxo-                                                     31/2011.......
                        naphthalene-1-
                        sulfonic acid
                        ester with 2-
                        [Bis(4-hydroxy-
                        2,3,5-
                        trimethylphenyl)
                        methyl]phenol
                        (CAS No. 184489-
                        92-7) (provided
                        for in subheading
                        2927.00.25)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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 accompanying Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Thrive World Wide, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2012, I, Bruce Dugan, Chief Executive Officerof Thrive World Wide, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



1.          Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2012, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2012, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Thrive World Wide, Inc.



Dated: August 16, 2012

| | By                                                | /s/ Bruce Dugan
| | ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------
| | Bruce Dugan, Director and Chief Executive Officer
| | (Principal Executive Officer)
WWW.EXFILE.COM, INC. -- 14655 -- ARKADOS GROUP, INC. -- EXHIBIT 10.1 TO FORM 10-QSB


     

    EXHIBIT
      10.1

    Oleg
      Logvinov

    27
      Beacon Hill Drive

    East
      Brunswick, NJ 08816

    


    
 

    
      	 	November 9,
              2006 


    

     

    


    Kirk
      Warshaw, CFO

    Arkados
      Group,, Inc.

    220
      Old
      New Brunswick Road, Suite 202

    Piscataway,
      NJ 08854

    


    Re:    Employment
      Agreement dated as of May 23, 2004

    


    Dear
      Kirk:

    


    I
      refer
      you to the above referenced agreement. Pursuant to Section 3c) of the agreement,
      a bonus of $65,333 was payable to me as of December 28, 2005. I hereby agree
      to
      temporarily waive this default for a period ending February 28,
      2007.

    


    The
      temporary waive is made with full reservation of any rights I have under the
      employment agreement and applicable law.

    


    Please
      confirm your receipt of this letter by signing below and returning a copy to
      me
      by facsimile or e-mail, original by mail.

     

    
      	 	 	
              Very
                truly yours, 

            
	 	 
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	 	/s/ Oleg
              Logvinov
	 	
              

            
	 	Oleg
              Logvinov


    

     

    


    cc:
      Herbert H. Sommer, Esq.

    Len
      Breslow, Esq.

    


    Receipt
      confirmed:

    


    CDKNET.COM,
      INC.

    


    


    By: 
      /s/
      Kirk
      Warshaw

    
      

    

    Kirk
      Warshaw, CFO
#### Kevin THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 87-2197.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 31, 1988.

Essen & Essen and Ronald A. Dion, North Miami Beach, and Alan T. Lipson, Miami, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Fariba N. Komeily, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert A. Ginsburg, Co. Atty. and Hugo Beni-tez, Asst. Co. Atty., for appellee.

Before HUBBART and BASKIN and PEARSON, DANIEL S., JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by a criminal defendant seeking review of trial court orders denying the defendant’s motion to declare him insolvent for costs and appointing the public defender to represent him below as co-counsel with private counsel retained by his family. We grant the petition and quash the orders under review based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.

First, the defendant, who was adjudged insolvent by the trial court below, was entitled to reasonable discovery costs to be paid by Dade County under Sections 914.11, 939.07, Florida Statutes (1985), and Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(k); he was not, as urged, required to accept the services of the public defender in order to obtain such reasonable costs of discovery. Moreover, the fact that his family had retained private counsel to represent him cannot change this result. *Guy v. State,*473 So.2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); *Price v. Mounts,*421 So.2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); *Johnson v. Snyder,*417 So.2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); *Saintil v. Snyder,*417 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Second, “section 27.51, Florida Statutes [1985], although it permits the appointment of the public defender to represent certain indigent defendants, does not permit the appointment of the public de*1012fender as *co-counsel*with privately retained counsel.” *Behr v. Gardner,*442 So.2d 980, 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (emphasis added). Stated differently, the trial court has no statutory authority to appoint the public defender to represent an indigent defendant, as here, as co-counsel with privately retained counsel; such an appointment is subject to quashal on a petition for certiorari, whether the subject petition is filed by the public defender, as in *Behr,*or by the defendant, as here.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the orders under review are quashed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the defendant’s motion to declare him insolvent for costs.

Petition granted; orders quashed; cause remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS THE FIFTY-TWO WEEK SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM APAC CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES 1999 FORM 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000             JAN-03-1999
<CASH>                                          18,876                   3,543
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,591                  79,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,560                   4,250
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,281                 104,930
<PP&E>                                         133,960                 152,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,076                  57,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,480                 267,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,324                  87,182
<BONDS>                                        115,987                 132,427
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           491                     489
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,131                  41,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   236,480                 267,502
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               427,645                 425,028
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  347,005                 353,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,045                 133,312
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                   3,090
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,365                   8,139
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,230                (73,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,580                 (5,200)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,650                (68,292)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                (11,028)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,650                (79,320)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .12                  (1.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12                  (1.63)


</TABLE>