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

Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahr a Bridget M. McCormac k

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstei n Kurtis T. Wilde r Elizabeth T. Clement,

J ustices

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 t he direction of the Court.

May 16, 2018

p0509 

# Order

Clerk May 16, 2018

157404

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 15 7404 COA: 326105 Allegan CC: 13-018686-FC BRANDON JAMES HARBISON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other acti on. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether the prosecution’s admission of Dr. N. Debra Simms’ expert testimony that the victim suffered “probable pediatric sexual a buse” violated this Court’s

decision in People v Peterson, 450 Mich 349 (1995), and, if so, whether this was plain error requiring reversal of the defendant’s convictions. In ad dition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically f ile an appendix conforming to M CR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page n umbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s bri ef. The appellee shall also ele ctronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix fil ed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appella nt within 14 days of being ser ved with the appellee’s brief. The parties should not subm it mere restatements of thei r application papers.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lincare Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul G. Gabos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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) | information   contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the   financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

|   | By:    | /s/ PAUL G. GABOS                             |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                               |
|   |   | **Paul G.   Gabos   Chief Financial Officer** |

November 9, 2004
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 4
FOCUS (12/11/2003) 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page #1 CBI: No 

ID Number: P04-0132

ENGINEER: Macek \ JB 

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 

OTHER USES: 

MSDS: Label: 

Gen Eqpt: 

Respirator: 

Health Effects: 

TLV/PEL: 

CRSS (12/01/2003): 

Chemical Name: 

Consumer Use: 

SAT (12/02/2003): 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 4
FOCUS (12/11/2003) 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page #2 CBI: No 

ID Number: P04-0132

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 4
FOCUS (12/11/2003) 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page #3 

ID Number: P04-0132

Number of Sites: 

Days/yr: 

Basis: 

Process Description: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Tot. # of workers: 

Inhalation: 

Dermal: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 11 

                         Microware Systems Corporation      
                  Computation of Net Earnings (Loss) per Share (1)      
                   (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)      


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Year ended March 31,
                                                ----------------------------
                                                  1996      1997      1998
                                                --------  --------  --------
<S>                                             <C>       <C>       <C> 
Net earnings (loss)                               $1,376   ($1,571)  ($9,946) 
                                                ========  ========  ========
   Shares used in per share     
      calculation-basic                           11,090    13,754    14,378
                                                ========  ========  ========  
   Basic earnings (loss) per share                $0.12   ($0.11)   ($0.69) 
                                                ========  ========  ========

Diluted EPS:      
   Net earnings (loss)                            $1,376   ($1,571)  ($9,946)
                                                ========  ========  ========
   Shares used in per share     
      calculation-diluted     
         Basic shares                             11,090    13,754    14,378 
         Options (2)                               1,840        -         -
         Warrants (2)                               -           -         -
                                                --------  --------  --------
                                                  12,930    13,754    14,378
                                                ========  ========  ========

      
Diluted earnings (loss) per share                $0.11    ($0.11)    ($0.69) 
                                                ========  ========  ========
</TABLE>
      
(1) See Note 1 of Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.     
(2) Warrants and options are not assumed exercised in loss periods as they      
      would be antidilutive.     

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of 3/31/98 and Consolidated Statement of 
Operations for the year ended 3/31/98 and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements.

                                     50
<PAGE>
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0177 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2009-SW-59-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
1

Foster, Cynthia

From: Guffey, Joe

Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:21 PM

To: 'F. Bruce Abel'

Cc: Foster, Cynthia; Mark Stepaniak (stepaniak@taftlaw.com)

Subject: RE: Cynthia Payne -Amending the Final Pre-trial Order

Bruce,

I am e-mailing you to confirm our discussion of today. We have agreed that we will revise 

the Amended Final Pretrial Order that was filed with the court to allow the addition of 

exhibits and/or propositions of law to be added within our respective portions of the 

Order. We will state any objections to the additional documents. Please let me know if 

that is incorrect. I will send you a copy of the Science data, and you might want to have 

those listed as a Joint Exhibit just as we did for the Avandia test documents.

On the copying costs issue. Cindy Foster gave me a breakdown of the costs so far: 

Cost of already copied materials that are joint exhibits= $520.00

Cost of Avandia Manual -approx. $ 200 

Costs of other manuals (Paxil etc) = approx. $250-$300.

So total costs will be about $1000 divided by 2 = $500 per party.

We will hold off on copying the manuals until the last minute.

I am also concerned about the stipulations of fact and joint exhibits being confusing to 

the court since the pretrial order was presented to the court before the Court's Order on 

the MSJ issues. So I would propose that I move those stipulated facts that I think are no

longer relevant to your claims into Plaintiff's Disputed Facts section, and move any joint

exhibit(s) that are not relevant into Plaintiff's Exhibit list. Then you can still have 

them available to you but I can object, and the Court can rule on whether the evidence 

comes in or not. How does that sound to you? Then the Amended Pretrial will be 

consistent with our respective positions for the trial.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Joe

Case 1:01-cv-00111-HJW Document 128-2 Filed 05/17/2004 Page 1 of 1
#### Primrose *v.*Brown.

Opinion delivered April 11, 1927.

1. Fences — failure to maintain division fence. — On failure of an adjoining landowner to maintain his half of a division fence, as required by Crawford & Moses’ Digest, §§ 2535-6, 4654, he became liable to the adjoining proprietor for damages sustained by the latter to his stock by reason thereof.

2. Justices of the peace — jurisdiction.-—A suit between adjoining landowners for $90 damages to stock occasioned by defendant’s failure to maintain his half of a division fence is not a suit involving damages to real property, but to recover a damage to personal property, and is within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.

Appeal from Benton Circuit Court; *W. A. Dickson,*J udge;

reversed.

Appellant *pro se.*

McIíaney, J.

Appellant, Con Primrose, brought this action in the justice of the peace court of Benton County, alleging that he is in possession of an eighty-acre tract of land adjoining a tract of eighty acres owned by appellee in Benton County, between which property there is a division fence; that the cost of maintaining said division fence should be equally borne by appellant and appellee; appellant kept up his half of the fence, and that appellee has failed, neglected and refused to keep up the other half of said fence, and that Iris stock turned in on his premises would get through the unrepaired portion of the devision fence and be damaged thereby, and that hev had been damaged by reason of her negligence in the sum of $90 “in caring for and looking up his stock, and in the actual damage done to the stock as aforesaid.”

On the trial of this case in the justice of the peace court he recovered $20, from which an appeal was taken by appellee to the circuit court, where she filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction in the justice of the peace court, and the court sustained said motion, dismissed his cause, and he has appealed to this court.

*633There is an obligation in law resting on joint owners or users of a division fence to equally maintain same. Section 4654 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest reads as follows :

“When any person shall inclose land adjoining another’s land already inclosed with a fence, so that any part of the fence first made becomes the partition fence between them, in such case the charge of said division fence, as far as it is inclosed on both sides, should be equally borne and maintained by both parties. ’ ’ See also §§ 2535 and 2536 of C. & M. Digest.

By failure of appellee to maintain her half of the division fence she would be liable to appellant for whatever damage he sustained to his stock by reason thereof. This suit does not involve damages to real estate, which would not be within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, but is to recover a damage done to personal property.

The judgment of the circuit court in dismissing appellant’s complaint was wrong, and it is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group; Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research Study Section MID Research Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         February 15-16, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F40A, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Robert C. Unfer, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F40A, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5035,                         *robert.unfer@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 21, 2022. 

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-01551 Filed 1-26-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Quintek  Technologies,  Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Robert  Steele,  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report  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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: November 14, 2005


/S/ ROBERT STEELE
-------------------------------
Robert Steele,
Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01815]



[[Page 4955]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-933]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Navinta 
LLC

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Navinta LLC, has applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 1, 2022. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before April 1, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on October 18, 2021, Navinta LLC, 1499 Lower Ferry Road, 
Ewing, New Jersey 08618-1414, applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled 
substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Drug
          Controlled substance              code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-Anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine           8333  II
 (ANPP).
Levomethorphan..........................     9210  II
Levorphanol.............................     9220  II
Noroxymorphone..........................     9739  II
Fentanyl................................     9801  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture active pharmaceutical 
ingredients (API) quantities of the listed controlled subsances for 
validation purpose and the Food and Drug Adminstration approval. No 
other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this 
registration.

Brian S. Besser,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-01815 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

_________________________________________ Clerk October 2, 2012 

# Order

October 2, 2012

144303 (70)

MACOMB COUNTY, MACOMB COUNTY

ROAD COMMISSION, and 16 TH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT COURT,

Respondents

- Appellants,

SC: 144303

v COA: 296416

MERC: 07

- 000083; 07

- 000086;

AFSCME COUNCIL 25 LOCALS 411 and 07

- 000087; 07

- 000115

893, INTERNATIONAL UNION UAW

LOCALS 412 and 889, and MICHIGAN

NURSES ASSOCIATION,

Charging Parties

- Appellees.

______________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by the Michigan Municipal League, the

Michigan Townships Association, the Michigan Association of Counties and the State

Bar Public Corporation Law Sect ion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is considered

and it is granted.
December 13 , 2013

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 400 7th Street SW, Plaza 401 Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption No. 5400J, (Docket No. FAA

- 2001

- 10676)

Dear Sir or Madam:

In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR §11.81, Airlines for America 1 (A4 A) on behalf of its member airlines and other similarly situated Part 121 certificate ho lders, petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 5400J (Docket No. FAA

- 2001

- 10676). This exemption will expire on January 31, 2014.

Exemption No. 5400J permits A4 A member airlines and other similarly situated Part 121 air carriers to use a Phase II (Le vel C) simulator for pilot in command (PIC) training and checking in accordance with the requirements of Part 121, Appendix H, amended, provided certain conditions and limitations are met. Also, under the terms of the exemption, upgrade training
and the ce rtification check required by 14 CFR §61.157 can be accomplished in a Phase II
simulator.

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, which warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This exemption and its predecessors, Exemption No. 5400, have been in use for almost 20 years with no known compromise of safety.

The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. A4A believes that there is just cause to waive the requirement o f public notice of this petition. There is no substantial change to the exemption and the renewal of this exemption is not precedent setting, therefore, A4A requests that publication in the Federal Register be waived as unnecessary.

1 The Member airlines are: Air Tran Airways, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, ASTAR Air Cargo, Atlas Air, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Evergreen International Airlines, Federal Express, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, Un ited Airlines, United Parcel Service, Co., and US Airways. The Associate members are: Air Canada and Air Jamaica.A summary of this petition is included (Attachment 1) as required by 14 CFR §11.81.

If any further information is required , please call me at 202

- 626

- 4285

Sincerely,

/S/

Donald Dillman

Director

– Operations
Airlines for America 1301 Pennsylvania A ve, NW

Suite 1100 Washington, DC 200004

Attachment 1: Summary of Petition

## Attachment 1

December 10, 2013

Docket No. FAA

- 2001

- 10676

Summary of ATA Petition

Petitioner: Airlines for America (A4A)

Regulation Affected: 14 CFR §61.157

14 CFR §121 Appendix H

Description of Relief Sought: Renew Exemption 5400J with no other changes to the existing terms except to extend its termination date. This allows Part 121 operators to use a Phase II (Level C) simulator for pilot in command (PIC) training and checking in accordance with the requirements of Part 121, appendix H, provided certain conditions and limitations are met.