alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Maurice J. Nagle’s Case.

Suffolk.

March 6, 1939.

June 28, 1939.

Present: Field, C.J., Donahue, Lummus, Qua, & Ronan, JJ.

*Workmen’s Compensation Act,*Injuries to which act applies. *Agency,*Scope of employment.

Circumstances in which an employee after his lunch on the day before Christmas left his place of employment on the second floor of his employer’s premises, went to the third floor to “visit girls” and attend a celebration and, in returning, fell on stairs, did not warrant a finding by the Industrial Accident Board that injuries thus received arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Certification to the Superior Court of a decision by the Industrial Accident Board awarding compensation.

By order of *F. T. Hammond,*J., the claim was dismissed. The claimant appealed.

*F. J. Linehan, Jr.,*for the claimant.

*E. B. Cass,*for the insurer.

Qua, J.

The employee was injured by a fall on a stairway on his employer’s premises as he was descending from the third floor to his place of work on the second floor at the close of the noon hour.

According to the employee’s testimony he had returned from his lunch, hung up his coat on the second floor near “the work bench,” and then went to the third floor “to visit girls.” It was the day before Christmas, and there, was evidence that “some of the girls” were having “some sort of celebration” on the third floor. There was an entire absence of any evidence that the employee’s visit to the third floor had any connection whatever with his work, or that persons working on the second floor were in the habit of going to the third floor, or even that they were permitted to go there. Although the employee was returning to his work at the time of his injury, there was no evidence that he was returning by a route which he was expected or *385allowed to use; hence there was nothing to show that the risk of falling on the stairs leading down from the third floor was in any way incidental to his employment on the second floor.

The facts recited above distinguish this case from *Sundine’s Case,*218 Mass. 1, *Von Ette’s Case,*223 Mass. 56, 60, *Hallett’s Case,*232 Mass. 49, *White.v. E. T. Slattery Co.*236 Mass. 28, 33, *Holmes’s Case,*267 Mass. 307, and *Mannering’s Case,*290 Mass. 517, and bring it within the authority of *Boss*v. *John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.*222 Mass. 560, *Rochford’s Case,*234 Mass. 93, *Babineau’s Case,*254 Mass. 214, and *Horton’s Case,*275 Mass. 572. Compare *Batts’s Case,*295 Mass. 335.

As there was no evidence that the employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, the "entry will be

*Decree affirmed.*
#### Estate of Nagle: Driscoll, Executor, etc., Appellant, vs. Patton, Claimant, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Brown county dated March 19, 1927: Carlton Merrill, Judge.

Claim for services. Judgment for claimant, from which the executor appeals.

For the appellant: *John V. Diener*of Green Bay.

For the respondent: *W. B. Surplice*of Green Bay.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
“SECRET

OFFICE OF THE S& TARY OF DEFENSE

February 4, 1960

MEMO FOR MR, ALBERT P, TONER

THE WHITE HOUSE *

” The attached items are submitted
by the Department of Defense for possible
inclusion in the daily summary for the

- President,

These items have also been for-
warded to Dr. Kistiakowsky,

. SEC DEF CONT NO._wS*/0.3_

R-Aa

O6 - m~- 0887


3. Launch of DISCOVERER Ix, {GONFIDENTIAT)-

DISCOVERER IX was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base
at 1358 EST, 4 February 1960,

Major test objectives were: To place an instrumented bio-
medical capsule in orbit; to recover the capsule from orbit on the }7th
pass,

Liftoff and early trajectory were as planned, Preliminary
indications are that the first stage THOR booster cut off approximately
20 seconds prematurely. Separation and ignition of second stage did ,
occur; however, dué to short burning time of THOR booster, orbital
velocity and altitude were not achieved, .

Explanation of the premature main engine cutoff on THOR
booster must await data reduction and analysis.

bs. 270
DoD 2~4-60 P
**EXHIBIT
      32(a)**





MICROS
      SYSTEMS, INC.





Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
      to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
      1350





In
      connection with the quarterly report of MICROS Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q (Form 10-Q”) for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, A.L. Giannopoulos,
      Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that
      to
      the best of my knowledge:




(1)  The
      Form
      10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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





Date:
                May 1, 2008
            /s/
            A.L.
                GiannopoulosA.L.
                Giannopoulos
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

AKRAM YASSIN, AKA Akram Sobhieya

Yassin,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-56688

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-04251-R-VBK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2015** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Akram Yassin appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his

motion to vacate summary judgment in the government’s action to revoke his

United States citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), and granting the government’s

FILED

APR 30 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
motion to enforce the judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review for an abuse of discretion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254,

1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Yassin’s motion to

vacate summary judgment and granting the government’s motion to enforce the

judgment, because Yassin failed to establish that the judgment was obtained

through fraud, and did not explain why he could not have discovered this alleged

fraud prior to the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); Casey, 362 F.3d at 1260

(to prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion the moving party must prove that the

judgment was obtained through fraud, and that the fraud was not discoverable by

due diligence before or during proceedings); see also Cal. Dep’t. of Social Services

v. Leavitt, 523 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (reviewing for an abuse of

discretion the denial of a motion to enforce a judgment). 

We reject Yassin’s contention that the district court erred in denying his

motion for appointment of counsel. 

We also reject Yassin’s contentions that due to the existence of an allegedly

identical prior lawsuit the district court lacked jurisdiction over the current lawsuit

and he has been subjected to double jeopardy, that the district court improperly

2 13-56688
denied him discovery, and that the district court improperly refused to file Yassin’s

letter concerning his inquiries regarding his prison mail. 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Yassin’s appeal of the district court’s 2012

summary judgment because Yassin failed to file a timely Notice of Appeal from

entry of judgment or a timely tolling motion. See Fed. R. App. P. § 4(a)(1)(B)(i),

(a)(4)(A)(vi). 

Yassin’s request for appointment of counsel in connection with this appeal,

set forth in his opening brief, is denied. 

AFFIRMED. 

3 13-56688
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 

Clerk

July 29, 2016

154062(52)(53)

MENARD, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, SC: 154062

v COA: 325718

Tax Tribunal: 00-441600, 14-001918-TT

CITY OF ESCANABA, Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of respondent-appellee for immediate 

consideration and to extend the time for filing its answer to the application for leave to 

appeal are GRANTED. The answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or 

before August 18, 2016.
# C_2005115EN.01003001.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/30

---

Action brought on 22 February 2005 by François Muller against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Case T-107/05)

(2005/C 115/54)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 February 2005 by François Muller, residing in Strasbourg (France), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the applicant's pension statement of May 2004, with the effect of applying a correction coefficient at the level for the capital of his country of residence or, at the very least, a correction coefficient which would adequately reflect the differences in the cost of living at the place where the applicant is deemed to incur expenditure and therefore complying with the principle of equivalence; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the applicant's pension statement of May 2004, with the effect of applying a correction coefficient at the level for the capital of his country of residence or, at the very least, a correction coefficient which would adequately reflect the differences in the cost of living at the place where the applicant is deemed to incur expenditure and therefore complying with the principle of equivalence;

| 2. | order the Court of Auditors to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Court of Auditors to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant puts forward pleas and arguments identical to those put forward by the applicants in Case T-35/05.

---
# C_2005132EN.01001003.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 10 March 2005

in Case C-469/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bologna Filomeno Mario Miraglia (1)

1

(Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Principle ne bis in idem - Scope - Decision of a Member State's judicial authorities to discontinue prosecution by reason solely of the initiation of similar proceedings in another Member State)

(2005/C 132/19)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-469/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 35 EU from the Tribunale di Bologna (Italy), made by decision of 22 September 2003, received at the Court on 10 November 2003, in the in the criminal proceedings brought against Filomeno Mario Miraglia — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The principle ne bis in idem, enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 at Schengen, does not fall to be applied to a decision of the judicial authorities of one Member State declaring a case to be closed, after the Public Prosecutor has decided not to pursue the prosecution on the sole ground that criminal proceedings have been started in another Member State against the same defendant and for the same acts, without any determination whatsoever as to the merits of the case.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.

1

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 
**- 7322** 

LANCE WHITAKER , Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v.

ANGELA P. DUNBAR , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. ( 5:13

- hc

- 02009

- D )

Submitted : January 22, 2015 Decided: January 30, 2015

Before WYNN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Lance Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Lance Whitaker, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court ’ s order granting in part and denying in part his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm the district cou rt ’s

order

. We also deny Whitaker’s motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2012) proceeding

. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Agenda Date: February 13, 2014

Prepared By: John Finnell, Senior Air Pollution Control Engineer

Topic: Adoption of Amended Rule 247, Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters, Small 

Boilers, and Process Heaters

Action Requested:

1) Conduct a Public Hearing regarding the proposed approval of amended Rule 247, Natural 

Gas-Fired Water Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process Heaters.

2) Adopt Resolution #14-03 (Attachment #1), thereby approving amended Rule 247, Natural 

Gas-Fired Water Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process Heaters, and the findings in the Staff 

Report (Attachment #2).

Discussion: The Placer County Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors adopted new 

Rule 247, Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process Heaters on October 10, 

2013. Subsequent to adoption, an industry association submitted a comment letter explaining 

that the rule requirements for marking of the nameplate of water heaters and boilers subject to 

the rule is non-standard and would make units sold in Placer County unique to others sold in 

California. The association suggested a change where some of the information could be marked 

on the unit instead of the name plate that is controlled by the safety rating agencies. Other 

California air districts do the marking in this way. If Placer County makes this change, then 

marking will be identical to the large air districts in the state.

Staff recommends changing the marking as suggested by the industry association, thereby 

making the units sold in Placer County identical to those sold in other air districts that have 

the same emission limitations. This should result in a cost reduction due to standard marking 

and common inventory of our suppliers.

Public Comment: EPA, ARB, and equipment suppliers were contacted with information about 

the proposed rule. No further comments were received. A Notice of Public Hearing for the 

proposed amended Rule 247 was published in the Auburn Journal on December 29, 2013.

Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution #14-03, (Attachment #1), thereby 

approving amended Rule 247, Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process 

Heaters, and the findings in the Staff Report of Attachment #2.

Attachment(s): #1: Resolution #14-03, Adoption of Rule 247, Natural Gas-Fired water 

Heaters, Small Boilers and Process Heaters, Exhibit I, Rule 247, 

Natural Gas-Fired water Heaters, Small Boilers and Process Heaters

#2: Staff Report

Board Agenda Item

Public Hearing/Action
ATTACHMENT #1

SUBJECT

Resolution #14-03, Adoption of Amended Rule 247,

Natural Gas-Fired water Heaters, Small Boilers and Process Heaters
EXHIBIT I

Rule 247, Natural Gas-Fired water Heaters, Small Boilers and Process Heaters
ATTACHMENT #2

SUBJECT

Staff Report:

Rule 247, Natural Gas-Fired water Heaters, Small Boilers and Process Heaters
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.38
 FORM OF RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT
(NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR VERSION as of MAY 2007)
 THIS RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 1. Grant of Restricted Stock Award .
 2. Restrictions on Transfer of Shares Subject to Award .
  Percentage of AwardPeriod After Grant Date
    
    As to Which Restrictions LapseOne Year Anniversary
    
    331/3%Two Year Anniversary
    
    662/3%Three Year Anniversary
    
    100%
    53




---



##### 



3. Restrictive Covenants .
  Non-Disclosure of Confidential Information
 Non-Solicitation of Employees and Customers
   Non-disparagement
 Non-Competition
   Subsequent assistance
 54




---



##### 



Reformation
 Disclosure of Information
 Cancellation and Other Remedies
     4. Non-Assignability of Award .
 5. Adjustments .
 6. Rights as Shareholder .
 7 Withholding .
 55




---



##### 



8. Notices .
 9. Governing Law .
 10. Provisions of Plan Controlling .
 11. Return of Signed Agreement .
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 GRANTEE
    
    CITIZENS REPUBLIC BANCORP, INC.By:William R. HartmanIts:
    
    
    
    Chief Executive Officer
 56
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8353-8354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03171]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463 as amended), the National Science

[[Page 8354]]

Foundation announces the following meeting:

    Name: Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research (#1203); 
Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC), Duke 
University Site Visit.

    Dates & Times:

May 13, 2015; 7:15 p.m.-9:00 p.m.
May 14, 2015; 7:15 a.m.-8:30 p.m.
May 15, 2015; 7:15 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

    Place: Duke University, Durham, NC 27708.
    Type of Meeting: Part open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Daniele Finotello, Program Director, 
Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers Program, Division 
of Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-4676.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning further support of the MRSEC at Duke University.

Agenda

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

7:15 p.m.-9:00 p.m. Closed--Briefing of panel

Thursday, May 14, 2015

7:15 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Open--Review of the MRSEC
5:00 p.m.-6:45 p.m. Closed--Executive Session
6:45 p.m.-8:30 p.m. Open--Dinner

Friday, May 15, 2015

7:15 a.m.-9:50 a.m. Closed--Executive Session
9:50 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Closed--Executive Session, Draft and Review 
Report

    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed during this site 
visit may include information of a proprietary or confidential 
nature, including technical information; financial data, such as 
salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the MRSEC. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) 
and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 11, 2015.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-03171 Filed 2-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0366

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: M.D., A Youth in Need of Care. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classifie d for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Peter B. Ohman, District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 2 2022

02/02/2022
Case Number: DA 21-0366
**Exhibit 10.34**
**COMPENSATION TABLE FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS**
Each director who is not an employee or officer of our company (“non-employee director”) receivesan annual retainer of $30,000. Each non-employee director also receives $1,500 per Board ofDirectors meeting attended and $1,000 per committee meeting attended. Additionally, the chairmanof the Audit Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $7,500 and all other committeechairmen receive an additional $3,000 annual retainer. Non-employee directors are automaticallyawarded options to purchase 2,000 shares of our common stock and 2,000 shares of restricted commonstock annually. All retainers and meeting fees are payable in cash, but can be deferred at theoption of the director under our Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors. Deferredcompensation earns interest at not less than the prime interest rate, or at the director’selection, is deemed to be invested in shares of phantom stock, without any voting or similar rightsincident to ownership of our common stock, in accordance with the Deferred Compensation Plan.
Options granted to non-employee directors are priced at the fair market value of the underlyingshares on the date of grant and are fully vested and exercisable. Transfer is restricted on allrestricted stock until the earlier of five years or termination by reason of death, disability orretirement from the Board. Our Board has discretion to remove any transfer restrictions onrestricted stock in the case of any other circumstance deemed appropriate by the Board.
Memorandum to Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0904

Date: May 15, 2013

From: Francisco Dóñez

Re: EPA-ADEQ meetings on Arizona Regional Haze SIP action

EPA Region 9 and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) held a series of 

meetings between January 31, 2013 and May 2, 2013 to discuss EPA’s pending action on the 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the state of Arizona. The main issue under 

discussion was how ADEQ could modify its submitted Regional Haze SIP to avoid EPA partial 

disapproval of certain elements of the SIP.

Staff members from both agencies invited to these meetings were as follows.

ADEQ: Eric C. Massey, Trevor Baggiore, Steven M. Calderon, Lisa M. Tomczak, Balaji 

Vaidyanathan, Bryan Paris, Ryan Templeton

EPA: Colleen McKaughan, Gregory Nudd, Charlotte Withey, Eugene Chen, Scott 

Bohning, Geoffrey Glass, Katherine Hoag, Shaheerah Kelly, Francisco Dóñez, Thomas Webb

Call dates:

Thursday, January 31, 2013, 12:00 noon to 1:00 PM – See docket item C-3 for more information.

Thursday, March 28, 2013, 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM

Thursday, April 11, 2013, 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM

Thursday, April 18, 2013, 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM

Monday, April 29, 2013, 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM

Thursday, May 2, 2013, 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM