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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

February 26, 2021

s0223 

# Order

Clerk February 26, 2021

162443

In re VANNATTER/COOPER, Minors. SC: 162443

COA: 352588

Newaygo CC Family Division:

18

- 009146

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 10, 2020

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
. . f-w-·~.,_/ 

REF ID:A522353 

~J6~1tl-~D ~ '5J 

)'X 

~ ~ lj?(JtPLo/~, ~~ 

~a~.~'><~~ <JMq~0 l/Tf;; / '/'/ ~ -,;i I' A T ~ C*'t.I t!ZM /.~·· ~~ 

.K 7 -~J( ~. JQ.u{, ~ . 

,~~(j_ ~ /t.-1 f!4?tt ; Jf.Jh< .. /2- IV..J A 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 08 - - 15 2014 pursuant to E .o. 1352a
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Mark Buckrey, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of STEN Corporation;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: August 13, 2008 | /s/ Mark Buckrey       
|--------------------- | -----------------------
|                      | Chief Financial Officer
# CE2004084EN.01062704.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/627 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/627

---

(2004/C 84 E/0704)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0556/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Definition of criteria for the recognition of disabilities

Subject:

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 7(h) of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission to define criteria for the recognition of disabilities and adopt an action plan aimed at effective prevention of musculoskeletal injuries at work?

---
StilEfn : A58 4 i 

USCIB: 24 • 4. 2/31 

l December 1954 

~ MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Proposed Revision of USCIB Directive Number 5. 

l. On 16 November 1954 the USCIB Security Committee submitted to 

the Executive Secretary a unanimously-agreed reconunendation for amendment of USCIB Directive Number 5. 

2. This recommendation,, which has been unanimousl,y ~pproved by 

USCIBEC, by vote sheet, would amend paragraph 1 of the Directive in 

question to re~d as follows: 

111. Provisions of this Directive are ap:plicabl,e to persons 

being considered for clearance and access to Category III and 

Category II COMINT. Minimum ;investigation and clearance standards 

for access to Category I COMINT will be in accordance with each 

USCIB member's existing clearance p:i;-ocedures tor access to classified materials of the same classiti9ation. The elements of the 

procedure for clearing a person tor Communications Intelligence 

(COMINT) are, consecutively: 

a. Determination of the 'need to know' • 

b. Investigation, and evaluation in terms of USCIB 

clearance standards. 

c. Approval for indoctrination. 

d. Indoctrination (and debriefing)." 

3. The foregoing decision of USCIBEC is forwarded for USClB 

consideration. In the absence of objection by any member prior to 

1200, 14 December 1954, the decision will be considered approved. 

USCIB: 4.2/31
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. § 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of LTC Properties, Inc. (or Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (or Report), I, Andre C. Dimitriadis, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Wendy L. Simpson, Vice
Chairman of the Board, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



|Date: February 28, 2005 |  | /s/ANDRE C. DIMITRIADISAndre C. Dimitriadis Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | /s/WENDY L. SIMPSONWendy L. Simpson Vice Chairman of the Board, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer   

The
foregoing certification is being furnished (but not filed) solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>


                                 Exhibit 23.1
                                 ------------


                       INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP, INC.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP, INC., relating to First Federal Savings
Bank of America Employees Savings and Profit Sharing Plan and Trust of our
report dated April 23, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP, INC. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1999 and 1998,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March
31, 1999, which report is included in the March 31, 1999 annual report on Form
10-K of FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP, INC.


                                           /s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
June 28, 1999
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1


                          GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP
                              COUNSELLORS AT LAW
                                EXCHANGE PLACE
                       BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109-2881



                               December 17, 1999


Bradley Real Estate, Inc.
40 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 600
Northbrook, IL 60062

     RE:  Legality of Securities to be Registered under the Registration
          Statement on Form S-3 (the "Registration Statement")

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

     This opinion relates to up to 1,275,066 shares of common stock, par value
$.01 per share (the "Redemption Shares"), of Bradley Real Estate, Inc., a
Maryland corporation (the "Company"), that may be issued if, and to the extent
that, certain holders of limited partner units ("Units") representing
partnership interests of Bradley Operating Limited Partnership, a Delaware
limited partnership (the "Operating Partnership"), tender such Units to the
Operating Partnership for redemption and the Company exercises its contractual
right to acquire such tendered Units for Redemption Shares, which are the
subject matter of the above-referenced Registration Statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission").

     We have acted as counsel to the Company in connection with the preparation
and filing with the Commission of the Registration Statement. We have examined
such documents and made such other investigation as we have deemed appropriate
to render the opinions set forth below. As to matters of fact material to our
opinions, we have relied, without independent verification, on representations
made in certificates from, and other inquiries of, officers of the Company.

     We express no opinion herein concerning the laws of any other jurisdictions
other than the laws of the United States of America and the General Corporation
Law of the State of Maryland as in effect on the date hereof, and also express
no opinion with respect to the blue sky or securities laws of any state,
including Maryland.
<PAGE>

Bradley Real Estate, Inc.
December 17, 1999
Page 2

     Based upon the foregoing, and having regard for such legal considerations
as we have deemed relevant, it is our opinion that, when the Registration
Statement relating to the Redemption Shares has become effective under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Redemption Shares have been duly
issued and exchanged for Units tendered to the Operating Partnership for
redemption in accordance with the provisions of the Operating Partnership
Agreement, the Redemption Shares will be duly authorized, validly issued, fully
paid and non-assessable.

     We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to the reference to use in the prospectus contained
in such Registration Statement.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 /s/ GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP

                                 GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


To the Board of Directors and
  Shareholders of Global Industrial Technologies, Inc.

In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, of shareholders' equity and of cash flows
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Global
Industrial Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiaries at October 31, 1997 and 1996,
and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended October 31, 1997, in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management; our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our
audits of these statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards which require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for the opinion expressed above.

/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP

PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Dallas, Texas
December 12, 1997, except as to the last paragraph of Note C
  which is as of January 19, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
                                                              <C>
<S>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         May-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                              Nov-23-1997
<CASH>                                                              9,347
<SECURITIES>                                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      17,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          287
<INVENTORY>                                                        28,553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   63,792
<PP&E>                                                             58,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     30,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    118,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              13,389
<BONDS>                                                            29,008
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                            1,272
<OTHER-SE>                                                         73,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      118,393
<SALES>                                                            43,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   44,200
<CGS>                                                              27,743
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      27,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   13,686
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  1,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     1,726
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          673
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 1,053
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        1,053
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         .08
        





</TABLE>
# CE2004084EN.01065901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/659 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/659

---

(2004/C 84 E/0743)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0703/04

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Member State contributions to the Community Budget

Subject:

The contributions made by each Member State to the EU budget are either less than 1 % of their national income, or very slightly more.

Given that the Community Budget is essential for the EU to achieve balanced development and cohesion, and to pursue the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, why do these contributions have to go on counting towards each Member State's deficit?

If they did not, is it not the case that the need to plug the national budgetary deficit by cutting contributions to the Community Budget would cease to be a pretext for preventing an increase in revenue for the new EU financial prospective for 2007-2013?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

(24 March 2004)

The EC Treaty obliges Member States to avoid excessive deficit positions (defined as general government deficit below a reference value of 3 % of gross domestic product (GDP)). The concept of ‘general government’ is defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts (1) in the Community (2), and the corresponding statistical data requirements are the ones in ESA95. All the expenditures included within the ‘general government’ definition do have a bearing on the excessive deficit. Member States' contributions to the EU budget are part of the expenditure of ‘general government’.

1

2

The Commission does not support any proposals to exclude specific spending items from the calculation of expenditures of ‘general government’. However, in order to achieve the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, it is important to increase the quality of public expenditures by redirecting public spending towards growth-enhancing cost-effective public spending. The Commission has regularly recommended in the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines to redirect public spending along these lines and this has indeed always been supported by the Parliament and the Council. Redirecting public expenditure would, therefore, enhance the contribution of both national and EU budgets to the achievement of Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives.

---

(1)  ESA95.

1

(2)  OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.

2

---
**Exhibit 10.11**

FIRST AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 

This First Amendment to Change in Control Agreement(the “Amendment”) is made this 31st day of December 2008 between BIOMET, INC., an Indiana corporation (“Biomet”), and Roger P. Van Broeck (“Executive”). All capitalized terms used herein shall havethe meanings ascribed to them in the Change in Control Agreement (defined below), unless otherwise defined herein. 

WHEREAS, Biomet andExecutive entered into that certain Change in Control Agreement dated as of September 20, 2006 (the “CIC Agreement”); 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.07 of the CIC Agreement, to the extent that any regulations or guidance issued under Code §409A would result in Executive being subject to the payment of any additional tax under Code §409A, theCompany and Executive agreed, to the extent reasonably possible, to amend the CIC Agreement in order to avoid the imposition of any such additional tax under Code §409A; and 

WHEREAS, Biomet and Executive desire to amend the CIC Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of whichare hereby acknowledged, Biomet and Executive hereby agree as follows: 

1. Section 3.01(b)(i):****Post-CIC Good Reason; OtherThan for Cause or Disability. Section 3.01(b)(i) of the CIC Agreement is hereby amended to delete the final sentence of Section 3.01(b)(i) in its entirety. 

2. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the CIC Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of whichshall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

*    *    *    *    * 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this First Amendment to Change in Control Agreement onthe date first set forth above. 

 
BIOMET, INC.By: 
/s/ Bradley J. Tandy
Name: Bradley J. TandyTitle: Senior Vice President, General Counsel & SecretaryEXECUTIVE 
/s/ Roger P. Van Broeck
Name: Roger P. Van Broeck
#### Moley, Respondent, vs. Barager and another, Appellants.

*April 30*

*May 20, 1890.*

*Libel: Words actionable per se: “Jackass.”*

A newspaper article, headed with the plaintiff’s name and a picture of a jackass, and referring to the plaintiff as “ an egotistical and overestimated, self-conceited jackass,” is libelous *per se.*

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Bmjfield*County.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday:

This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action for libel. The complaint contains the usual *colloquium,*and alleges the publication, September 13, 1888, of the article in question, which is set out in full, with appropriate innuendoes, and is headed, “ JIis HoNob, James Moley,” followed by a cut, — • a representation and picture of a jackass,— and that is followed by the balance of the article, to wit:

“Monday was labor day, and it was celebrated in Wash-burn in a very fitting manner by a torch-light procession, consisting of about 150 torch carriers, who marched from the K. of L. hall to the town hall, where a well-arranged programme of entertainment was nearly, if not quite, carried out.

“ The above item appeared in last week’s Itemizer, and had the same effect on an egotistical and over-estimated, self-conceited jackass, who claims the name of *James Moley,*as a red rag would on an enraged bull. The item referred to calls for no apology on our part, as there is not a word in it detrimental to the above-mentioned quadruped or the poor laboring men, nor can it be so construed; therefore we shall make none. We have neither time nor space this week'to reply to the article of the above gentleman which *44appeared in tbe Ashland News, Sunday, but in the future look out for breakers. To be continued.”

For the appellants there was a brief by *Cole <& O’Keefe,*attorneys, and *Hiohard Sleight,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Bublee A. Oole.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Miles <& Shea,*and oral argument by *W. F. Shea.*

Cassoday, J.

It has been repeatedly held by this court, in effect, that a written publibation, though not charging a punishable offense, is libelous *goer se*if it tends to subject the party to whom it refers to social disgrace, public distrust, hatred, ridicule, or contempt. *Bradley v. Cramer,*59 Wis. 309, and cases there cited; *Gauvreau v. Superior Pub. Co.*62 Wis. 410. Upon this demurrer, the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true, and hence the things alLeged must be regarded as false, and, as such, knowingly published by the defendant. *Gauvreau v. Superior Pub. Co.*62 Wis. *407.*It is for the court to determine whether a publication is capable of the meaning ascribed to it in the complaint. *Ibid.; Bradley v.*Cramer, 59 Wis. 312. In analogy to numerous cases in this and other courts, we must hold that the publication in question is capable of the meaning ascribed to it in the complaint, and is therefore libelous *per se. Solverson v. Peterson,*64 Wis. 201; *S. C.*25 N. W. Rep. 14, and note; *Massuere v. Dickens,*70 Wis. *87.*

*By the*Court.— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.