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.

March 28, 2014

s0324 

# Order

Clerk March 28, 2014

148227

- 9

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148227

- 9

COA: 302026; 302038; 302045

Macomb CC: 09

- 005130

- FC;

09

- 005132

- FC; 09

- 005135

- FC

DUNCAN LORENZO ALEXANDER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

J.) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

March 12, 1968 

MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY BROWN 

SUBJECT: Mission Data Adapter Unit (MDAU) for MOL 

This is in response to your marginal comments in 

the February 1968 MOL Status Report on the MDAU source 

selection. 

You noted that we had not solicited Raytheon for 

a rebid for the MDAU on an FPI basis as we had the 

other two contractors. The reason for the request for 

FPI bids from the other two contractors was that their 

CPIF bids were just a bit more than half the Raytheon 

CPIF bid. We therefore wanted to assure ourselves that 

the other contractors were willing to stand up to their 

bids on a firmer commitment basis. Both contractors raised 

their prices by about $200,000 (over about $4.5 million 

originally bid CPIF). However, since the Raytheon price 

was about $8.2 million for the same work on a CPIF basis, 

we did not think it useful to request an FPI bid from 

them. 

If you think that we are laying ourselves open to 

the charge of unfairness to Raytheon, (which would, in 

my opinion, be sustained under the circumstances), we 

will get an FPI bid from Raytheon. 

Please advise if you think this is necessary or 

desirable. 

62e-/-44/"F44 4

Alexander H. Flax 

Assistant Secretary 

Research and Development 

DOWNGRADED AT 3 YEAR IfiTERVALS; 

DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 YEARS., 

DOD DIR. 5200.10 

Pli 7t":1,!?.7.r.!
#### Fitzpatrick, Appellant, vs. Yache and wife, Respondents.

*March 23*

April *13, 1915.*

*Vendor and purchaser of land: Purchase-money lien: Evidence: Burden of proof.*

*1.*In an action to establish, and foreclose a purchase-money lien on land held by defendant under an apparently clear title, the . burden is upon the plaintiff to show that the land is subject to such lien.

2. Findings of fact in such a case in favor of the defendant are *held*to be supported by the evidence.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Winnebago county: Geo. W. B-ueNell, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to establish and foreclose a purchase-money lien on a faxm of fifty-three acres. The plaintiff, a widower eighty-one years of age, deeded the farm (his homestead) to the defendant *Louis*(his son-in-law) July 5, 1913, by warranty deed which expressed a consideration of $4,300, and by the-terms of which a life estate was reserved to the plaintiff. No money was in fact paid nor was- any note or mortgage given. The plaintiff claims that the arrangement was that *Louis*should pay $500 on the purchase price in the fall and then that a mortgage should be given for the balance. The defendants claim that it was a gift. The action was tried by the court and findings made to the effect that the only consideration for the deed was love and affection and the agreement that the defendant *Louis*would rent the premises of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff should live and have a home with the defendants; that the value of the farm at the time did not exceed $70 an acre or $3,710 in the aggregate; that the defendants moved on to the farm in 1913 as tenants of the plaintiff and plaintiff lived with them until the commencement of this action; that the defendants have in all things fully carried out their agreement with the plaintiff and have paid the taxes and insurance on the buildings since the conveyance; that in February or March, 1914, trouble arose *447between tbe parties as to tbe amount of rent defendants were to pay, and thereafter this action was begun. In a written opinion tbe trial judge, after reviewing at length the testimony, concludes, in view of tbe fact that tbe burden of proof was on tbe plaintiff to prove that there was an oral agreement to pay in tbe future tbe sum named as tbe consideration in tbe deed, that tbe plaintiff bad failed to discharge that burden and in fact that tbe circumstances favored tbe defendants’ version. From judgment dismissing tbe complaint tbe plaintiff appeals.

For tbe appellant there was a brief by *Thompson, Thompson & Jackson,*and oral argument by *J. C. Thompson.*

For tbe respondents there was a brief by *Frank B. Keefe,*attorney, and *Charles*and *Ilenry Barber,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Keefe.*

■WxNslow, C. J.

In this ease it is held:

1. Tbe burden is upon tbe plaintiff to show that land held by defendant under an apparently clear title is subject to a purchase-money lien in plaintiff’s favor.

2. Tbe findings of fact of tbe trial court in this case are well supported by tbe evidence.

There are no other substantial questions in tbe case.-

*By the Gowrt.*— Judgment affirmed.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1333 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude cannabidiol and 

cannabidiol-rich plants from the definition of marihuana, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2015 

Mr. GARDNER (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. 

MERKLEY, and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude 

cannabidiol and cannabidiol-rich plants from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Therapeutic Hemp 

5 Medical Access Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1333 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CANNABIDIOL AND CANNABIDIOL2 RICH PLANTS FROM DEFINITION OF MARI3 HUANA. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 102(16) of the Controlled 

5 Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended, in the 

6 second sentence— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or the sterilized seed’’ and in8 serting ‘‘the sterilized seed’’; and 

9 (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 

10 following: ‘‘, cannabidiol, or cannabidiol-rich plants’’. 

11 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 102 of the Controlled 

12 Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802), as amended, is further 

13 amended by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(57)(A) The term ‘cannabidiol-rich plant’ 

15 means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of 

16 such plant, whether growing or not, with a 

17 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 

18 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. 

19 ‘‘(B) A cannabidiol-rich plant shall not be treat20 ed as a controlled substance under this Act. 

21 ‘‘(58)(A) The term ‘cannabidiol’ means the sub22 stance cannabidiol, as derived from a cannabidiol23 rich plant. 

24 ‘‘(B) Cannabidiol shall not be treated as a con25 trolled substance under this Act. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1333 IS

1 ‘‘(59) The term ‘tetrahydrocannabinol concen2 tration’ means— 

3 ‘‘(A) the percent of the delta-9 tetrahydro4 cannabinol content per dry weight of any part 

5 of the plant Cannabis sativa L. or per volume 

6 of weight of marihuana product; or 

7 ‘‘(B) the combined percent of the delta-9 

8 tetrahydrocannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinol9 ic acid in any part of the plant Cannabis sativa 

10 L., regardless of moisture content.’’. 

11 SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

12 Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this 

13 Act, shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict 

14 any activities related to the use, production, or distribu15 tion of marijuana in a State in which such activities are 

16 legal under State law. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.1 

 

**AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE UNIFIED WESTERN GROCERS, INC.**

**SHELTERED SAVINGS PLAN**

 

Unified Western Grocers, Inc. (the“Company”) hereby amends the above-named plan (the “Plan”), effective as of December 1, 2005, as follows: 

 

1.    Section 3.2(b) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 

“(b)    A Participant’s election to forgo receipt of a portion of his or her Compensation shall besubject to such rules, modification or cancellation as the Committee, in its discretion, shall permit; provided, however, that the Committee shall exercise its discretion in a nondiscriminatory manner.” 

 

2.    The last sentence of Section 3.4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in itsentirety to read as follows: 

 

“A Participant’s election toforgo receipt of a portion of his or her Compensation shall be subject to such rules, modification or cancellation as the Committee, in its discretion, shall permit; provided, however, that the Committee shall exercise its discretion in anondiscriminatory manner.” 

 

* * * * * 

 

The Company has caused this Amendment No. 6 to be signed on the date indicated below, to beeffective as indicated above.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                           4,064
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,794
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     33,625
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,075
<PP&E>                                          67,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 240,737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,885
<BONDS>                                        123,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     35,000
<COMMON>                                         9,178
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   240,737
<SALES>                                        220,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               220,914
<CGS>                                          173,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  173,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,957
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,055
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,709
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,709
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The results of operations for the year ended December 28, 1996 represent the
combined results of Clark-Schwebel Holdings, Inc. ("Company") for the period of
April 18, 1996 through December 28, 1996 (successor company) and the results of
Fort Mill A, Inc. for the period of December 31, 1995 through April 17, 1996
(predecessor company). A change in ownership resulted from a leveraged buyout
on April 17, 1996, and the transaction resulted in a new basis of accounting
for the Company. Therefore, the results of operations for year ended
December 28, 1996 are not fully comparable to preceding reporting periods. This
schedule contains summary financial information from the Company's financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### Order issued September/

# & 2012

In The 

## otourt of Appeals 1F.ift4 

## 1llistrid of Wexas at

# m alias No. 05-11-01268-CR No. 05-11-01269-CR TIEN JUNG KUO, Appellant 

# v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-55962-J, F10-55963-J 

### ORDER The Court 

### REINSTATES the appeals. 

## l'l·9'
...... 004:ti (

On December 21, 2011, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the reporter's record has not been filed. On January 6, 2012, appellant's attorney filed a motion to dismiss the appeals. However, the motion did not comply with Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 42.2(a) because it was not signed by both appellant and his attorney. We notified appellant ofthe defect in a letter dated January 9, 2012. To date, we have not received the trial court's findings, the reporter's record, nor a motion to dismiss the appeals that complies with rule 42.2(a). The appeals cannot proceed until the issue ofthe reporter's record is resolved. Accordingly,we0 RD 

### ERthetrial courttomakefindings offact regardingwhether appellant has beendeprived ofthereporter'srecord because ofineffective counsel, indigence, or for any otherreason. •



### •

• 

## 00409cl

Thetrial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals. Ifthe trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeals, it shall make a finding to that effect. If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigentand entitledto proceed withoutpaymentofcosts for the reporter's record. Ifappellant is entitled to proceed without payment ofcosts, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, ifappellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address ofeach court reporter who recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter's explanation for the delay in filing the reporter's record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter's record can be filed. We ORDERthetrial courttotransmita supplementalrecord, containingthe written findings offact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within TIDRTY DAYS ofthe date ofthis order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. They shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, whichever is earlier.



### -2-

# JJ~~ DA V1D L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
# C_2004273EN.01000901.xml

| 6.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 September 2004

in Case C-404/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance du Mans): Olivier Dupuy and Hervé Rouvre (1)

1

(Dangerous substances or preparations - Siccatives containing lead - Prohibition of placing on the market - Directives 76/769/CEE and 94/60/CE)

(2004/C 273/16)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-404/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal de grande instance du Mans (France), made by decision of 8 September 2003, received on 29 September 2003, in criminal proceedings against Olivier Dupuy and Hervé Rouvre — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September 2004, in which it has ruled:

The provisions of Community law relating to restrictions on the placing on the market of dangerous substances or preparations, in particular the provisions of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/EC of 20 December 1994, prohibit the placing on the market for sale to the general public of siccatives containing lead compounds classified as toxic for reproductive purposes.

---

(1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.

1

---
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release #02-17

Contact: (703) 808-5050 May 1, 2017

NROL-76 Lifts Off, Ushering in a New Era

A National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) payload was successfully launched

aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A),

Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida, at 7:15 a.m. EDT, on May 1, 2017.

“Thanks to the SpaceX team for the great ride, and for the terrific teamwork and 

commitment they demonstrated throughout. They were an integral part of our 

government/industry team for this mission, and proved themselves to be a great 

partner,” said Betty Sapp, Director of the National Reconnaissance Office.

LC-39A, located at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, is historical for launches 

dating back to the early 1960s. Originally built to host the Apollo program, 

LC-39A supported Apollo 4 – the first Saturn V launch, and subsequent Apollo 

missions including Apollo 11, in July 1969. In the late 1970s, LC-39A was 

modified to support Space Shuttle launches, hosting the initial shuttle mission in 

1981 and concluding with the final shuttle mission in 2011.

NROL-76 is the second of five launches slated for the NRO in 2017. The next 

NRO launch is on schedule for August 14 from Vandenberg Air Force Base 

(VAFB), California.

-NROThe NRO is a joint Department of Defense–Intelligence Community organization responsible for

developing, launching, and operating America’s intelligence satellites to meet the national 

security needs of our nation.
ROBERT CALVIN HAYNES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-5665

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 7, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gilchrist County.

Stanley H. Griffis, III, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, A. Victoria Wiggins and Joel Arnold, 

Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 13.2
                                                                  ------------



               ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS LIMITED

                            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 Asia Satellite Telecommunications Holdings Limited (the
"Company")  Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended  December 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  I, Denis Lau, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)     The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


June 19, 2006


                                       /s/ Denis Lau
                                       ------------------------
                                       Denis Lau
                                       Chief Financial Officer
I , 1.• "IP

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON

Orr= or Tele AspirrAter goCRILTARY I

• 

nR 23 December 1965

)

•

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. FLAX

•

4 SUBJECT: CORONA Changes

In February 1964 Dr. McMillan attempted to get a

firmer grip on the CORONA management by establishing

the policy (Tab 1) that all CORONA technical directives

d

would be approved by the DNRO or hit Deputy.

This procedure has proved cumbersome and slow and

.t

there has been an increasing tendency to accomplish

"small" modifications by the use of an Auxiliary Work

Authorization issued by the CIA.

The requirement for DNRO approval is however the

only formal mechanism for insuring that changes are

coordinated between the CIA and SAFSP.

A/P and SAFSP are preparing to incorporate several

changes into the recovery capsule such as a lighter

ablation shield, wiring changes for easier access, and

a new squib activated battery. These are critical

components, and, even though the changes are apparently

desirable, I recommend that we reconfirm the principle

that the DNRO should approve all significant CORONA

changes by signing the attached message.

ALBERT MESON

Major, MAP .7-/1

ivd

.2

4

—.1,111,4,4,41111

V

Tr, • -•• • ••••••••0 ..z41:461 •

"' • ' .1 •

•

lOtt.MbLiterhol

• •
• • •

• •

Infix

•

: 1 • •: • •

••;•

.• •

•• •' .

s

.

"

•

•,

1.

•••.:

. •••;.;

. . Casegfacatiee.;:.,:.

SEURF

Originator:. •

Raj Johnson/ank.

Date: 23 Dec 65'.

Precedence

PRIORITY

..*:::teNA •

39

. .

. ••1.

. • "r:.

Addressee a •

•

•

ACM=

.•

I.

' •

.

•• ••

• ' : • :•••••;'

• ••

••

• • • • . • •

• '' •

•,:•• '•"• • •. •

. .„

• It•::•'‘e••••1

. • :;•••:••• • •

• ;:••••'' . ••.,•:;'••

.s. •

• •

.•

.•

•

• ..":

. • — &a: .

. • • i•K HAS REQUESTED THAT . A JOINT PRESENTATION CONCERNING . .

1-1SED P.ECOVERY VEHICLE SIRING, HEAT SHIELD, 'AND *BATTERY 

.. • ' • • s .•

Ft CATIONS AND ANY PROPOSED ORBITAL TESTS . • :

. .

.s.,:ar:7ICATIONS BE MADE TO ow ON 13 JANUARY. • • '1":‘ SHOULD BE DNDERSTOOIt:... .$

NO HARDWARE WILL BE MUNI TI'ED TO FLIGHT P•02 TO THIS , • • • 7•••:.' ••: ••

••• c• • % . ••••••• •.• .

•I`•

. •

. •

. . • : . . z. • ... •• •• . 4" • • /:1,1:,

I

• , ' .

:

..

• • l'• - ••• . ••;:. ••• • ".••••:*%.::.!:-; t......

..

APF-::::PRIA:2 TECHNICAL DIRECTIVES IINPLEMECT/ NC • TItra:SE, -RECtlifiNDATIONS. :.-: ,

.. .

. .. : . .

.: • . . : .. • -• ' '). . :..• :r4:.• ' ..: .• ,'"

zt•::0:11) BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AT THE IIRET:tYrs.

• •

. • •

- .. :410- • • r. • • ...e.

....•..- •

..,& — .....• -- ---J--e '. .,••••• '• • • • •..: • . 'A:

. .. . s —:!.......- . .• •'... s•:* •••;: ,..;.:

•

. . . . . .

. .

iNG. :

. • st • i• •

••n•

r•

• • 4:

•

• 7.T===.

 •

OL CHANNELS •CNLY

Md=

.

. •

41

.• Cleat:a

. .

lesaing Ct 4•2

•••••• ••••• . :