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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

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

September 21, 2011 

t0914 

Order 

 

September 21, 2011 

142980 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142980 

 COA: 298522 

Wayne CC: 04-003659-FC 

DEANGELO THOMAS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2011 order 

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

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
1

Moran, Nicole

From: Moran, Nicole

Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 3:18 PM

To: William Bider; Christine Mennicke

Cc: Toensing, Don

Subject: Comment Letter - KS' Draft CCR Part 256 Plan

Attachments: Comment Letter KS Draft SWMP.08062015.pdf

Bill, 

Enclosed is an electronic copy of EPA’s Comment Letter for the State of Kansas Draft Coal Combustion Residuals Part 256 

Plan submittal. The official letter is in the mail. Please make note that there were a few changes to the checklist that 

you received yesterday following OGC’s review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact myself or Don 

Toensing. 

Thanks, 

Nicole 

Nicole Moran 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 

Air and Waste Management Division 

Waste Enforcement and Materials Management Branch 

11201 Renner Boulevard 

Lenexa, KS 66219 

913-551-7641 (phone) 

moran.nicole@epa.gov
Deandes YOUNG, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1042

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2018

Deandes Young, pro se, Petitioner.

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

Per Curiam.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Osterhaus and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
Jerome HARPER, Appellant, v. James SIERRA, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Rose Marie Sierra, deceased, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3386

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 23, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Wayne BARBER; George White, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. BANK, successor trustee to Bank of America, NA, successor in interest to LaSalle Bank NA, as trustee on behalf of the Holders of the WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OA1; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56282

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*353Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017

Patricia Renee Rodriguez, Rodriguez Law Group, Inc., Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Steven M. Dailey, Esquire, Kutak Rock LLP, Irvine, CA, Aileen Ocon, Locke Lord LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Wayne Barber and George White appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. - Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Vestar Dev. II, LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.,*249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ wrongful foreclosure and Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(6) claims because they are pre-foreclosure challenges. *See Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,*245 Cal.App.4th 808, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 790, 795-96 (2016) (noting that preemptive challenges to foreclosure are not allowed under California law, and *Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp.,*62 Cal.4th 919, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d 845 (2016) is expressly limited to the post-foreclosure context), *review denied*July 13, 2016.

Dismissal of plaintiffs’ breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim was proper because the covenant only protects express covenants or promises of the contract. *See Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.,*47 Cal.3d 654, 254 Cal. Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373, 394 (1988) (“The covenant of good faith is read into contracts in order to protect the express covenants or promises of the contract, not to protect some general public policy interest ...”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. *See Cervantes,*656 F.3d at 1041 (setting forth standard of review and noting that a court may dismiss without leave to amend where amendment-would be futile).

We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the district court’s grant of defendants’ request for judicial notice and its consideration of the judicially noticed documents.

We do not consider matters not specifi- • cally and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rita Marie EDWARDS v. Michael Val EDWARDS

2160174

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03289]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-771-772 and 775 (Fourth Review)]


Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless 
steel wire rod from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would be likely to 
lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in 
the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on July 1, 2021 (86 FR 
35124) and determined on October 4, 2021, that it would conduct 
expedited reviews (86 FR 72994, December 23, 2021).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on February 10, 2022. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5279 (February 2022), 
entitled Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan: 
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-771-772, and 775 (Fourth Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: February 10, 2022.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-03289 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6297 

To assess the State by State impact of Federal taxation and spending. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2023 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. PHILLIPS, Mr. SMITH of 

New Jersey, and Mr. GOTTHEIMER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To assess the State by State impact of Federal taxation 

and spending. 

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 ‘‘Payer State Trans5 parency Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CALCULATION OF FEDERAL TAX BURDENS AND 

7 OUTLAYS. 

8 (a) STATE BY STATE CALCULATION OF FEDERAL

9 TAX BURDENS.— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6297 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Commerce, 

2 acting through the Director of the Bureau of Eco3 nomic Analysis, shall calculate the Federal tax bur4 den of each State for each calendar year. 

5 (2) CALCULATION OF FEDERAL TAX BUR6 DEN.—For purposes of calculating the Federal tax 

7 burden of each State under paragraph (1), the Sec8 retary shall— 

9 (A) treat Federal taxes paid by an indi10 vidual as a burden on the State in which such 

11 individual resides; and 

12 (B) treat Federal taxes paid by a legal 

13 business entity as a burden on each State in 

14 which economic activity of such entity is per15 formed in the same proportion that the eco16 nomic activity of such entity in such State 

17 bears to the economic activity of such entity in 

18 all the States. 

19 (b) STATE BY STATE CALCULATION OF FEDERAL

20 OUTLAYS.— 

21 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of 

22 Management and Budget, in coordination with the 

23 Council of Economic Advisers and the Secretary of 

24 the Treasury, shall calculate the total amount of 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6297 IH

1 Federal outlays received by each State in each fiscal 

2 year. 

3 (2) TREATMENT OF CONTRACT AWARDS.—For 

4 purposes of calculating the amount of Federal out5 lays received by a State under paragraph (1), a Fed6 eral contract award shall be treated as a Federal 

7 outlay received by each State in which performance 

8 under the award takes place in the same proportion 

9 that such performance in such State bears to such 

10 performance in all the States. 

11 (c) STATE DEFINED.—In this section the term 

12 ‘‘State’’ means each of the several States. 

13 SEC. 3. JOINT REPORT. 

14 Not later than the date that is 180 days after the 

15 beginning of each calendar year, the Secretary of Com16 merce and the Director of the Office of Management and 

17 Budget shall— 

18 (1) jointly submit to Congress a report con19 taining the results of the calculations described in 

20 section 2 with respect to such calendar year; and 

21 (2) publish the report on a publicly accessible 

22 website of the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 23                                                                

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-26745), the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 33-53561), the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(No. 33-51021), and the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-35137) of Premark International, Inc. of
our report dated February 14, 1997 appearing as Exhibit 99.1 of this
Form 10-K.


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 18, 1998
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul VARGAS-ORTIZ, Also Known as Daniel Vargas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50516 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 21, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Raul Vargas-Ortiz, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

*186PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Raul Vargas-Ortiz has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vargas-Ortiz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm, R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of RAE Systems Inc.;
    (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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
  (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.
  /s/ Randall GausmanRandall GausmanVice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### George T. HOUDE, a/k/a George T. Houde, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARK, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6392

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

George T. Houde, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George T. Houde seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(C)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Houde has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Henry Powell DENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-262

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and M. J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Ray, Bilbrey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
Joshua FARLEY v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al.

CR-16-0483

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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

      ( print page 9077)    
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:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Resource-Related Research Projects (R24 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         March 9, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F58, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mario Cerritelli, 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 3F58, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5199,                         *cerritem@mail.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: February 14, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03442 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffery Arnold DEAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-20133 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 14, 2017

Anna Elizabeth Kalluri, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jeffery Arnold Deal pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with two counts of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 63 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

On appeal, Deal challenges the calculation of his guidelines range of imprisonment under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), which states that the base offense level is 20 if the offense occurred subsequent to a felony conviction for a crime of violence. He avers that his Texas conviction for robbery no longer qualifies as a crime of violence because the former residual clause and accompanying commentary of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) are invalid in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). That argument is unavailing, *see Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 892, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), and Texas robbery qualifies as an enumerated crime of violence under the former commentary to § 4B1.2, *see United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez,*469 F.3d 376, 380-81 (5th Cir. 2006), *overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez,*711 F.3d 541, 547-63 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc); *United States v. Moore,*635 F.3d 774, 776 (5th Cir. 2011); *United States v. Velasco,*465 F.3d 633, 641 n.9 (5th Cir. 2006) (definitions of crime of violence set forth in U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.2 and 2L1.2 are treated interchangeably). Because the offense qualifies as an enumerated crime of violence, we need not address Deal’s addi*342tional argument that Texas robbery does not constitute a crime of violence under § 4B1.2 because it lacks the element of use, threatened use, or attempted use of force. *See United States v. Olalde-Hernandez,*630 F.3d 372, 376 (5th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Shaw NELSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6347

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 18, 2017

Decided: July 20, 2017

*211Albert Shaw Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albert Shaw Nelson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his motion to reconsider the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Nelson,*No. 5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*