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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 13, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 131942 & (26) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131942 COA: 267317 Wayne CC: 01-003494-01 CAPRESE D. GARDNER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of December 13, 2 006, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to app eal the July 10, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application is again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MC R 7.302(G)(1). We furth er ORDER the Wayne Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order 2003-03, to de termine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint counsel to rep resent the defendant in this Court. The parties shall submit supplemental br iefs within 56 days of the date of the order appointing counsel, addressing whether People v Preuss , 436 Mich 714 (1990), and People v Stoudemire , 429 Mich 262 (1987), mod Preuss, supra , correctly held that multiple convictions arising out of a single cri minal incident may count as only a single prior conviction for habitual offender purposes, and if so , whether the defendant is entitled to be resentenced.

The Criminal Defense A ttorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

d0410 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 13, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Steven M. Blondy, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of R.H.Donnelley Corporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
     a.) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls or procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;
     b.) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation;
     c.) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming equivalent functions):
     a.) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and
     b.) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: March 12, 2004 By:  /s/ Steven M. Blondy    Steven M. Blondy    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 10M58.

#### Brenda Collins, Petitioner v. TIAA-CREF, et al.

562 U.S. 1131, 131 S. Ct. 974,

178 L. Ed. 2d 743,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 466.

January 10, 2011.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 386 Fed. Appx. 409.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>0000032120
<NAME>Arlene Bell
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                           275          
<SECURITIES>                       0          
<RECEIVABLES>                  1,031          
<ALLOWANCES>                     (15)         
<INVENTORY>                    1,862          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               3,218          
<PP&E>                         4,888          
<DEPRECIATION>                (4,336)         
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 3,893          
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          1,193          
<BONDS>                        1,485          
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0            
<PREFERRED>                        0            
<COMMON>                         637           
<OTHER-SE>                       578           
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   3,893           
<SALES>                        7,207           
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               7,362           
<CGS>                          4,080           
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  8,045           
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0            
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  39           
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               211           
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (893)          
<INCOME-TAX>                       0           
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0            
<DISCONTINUED>                 1,136           
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0            
<CHANGES>                          0            
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,136)          
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      0            
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (.18)           
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16096]



[[Page 33088]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis 
Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Name of SEP: Costimulation Blockade for Primate Renal 
Transplantation and Transplant Tolerance: Costimulation, Cytokines & 
Chimersim.
    Date: July 14, 1998.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to Adjournment.
    Place: Hotel Complexe Desjardins, Argenteuil Room 4, Complexe 
Desjardins, Montreal, Quebec H5B 1E5, Canada, (514) 514-285-1450.
    Contact Person: Dr. Vassil Georgiev, Scientific Review Adm., 
6003 Executive Boulevard, Solar Bldg., Room 4C04, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 496-8206.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate grant applications.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 93.855, 
Immunology, Allergic and Immunologic Diseases Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health)

    Dated: June 9, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-16096 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated September 15, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedules and
management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Quixote Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,
2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-62933 effective September 4, 1998; 333-81955 effective June 30, 1999;
333-32872 effective March 21, 2000; 333-56120 effective February 23, 2001; 333-74488 effective December 4, 2001; 333-83404 effective February 26, 2002; 333-120850 effective
November 30, 2004; 333-120852 effective November 30, 2004; and 333-148047 effective December 13, 2007) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-106895 effective July 9, 2003; 333-113504
effective March 11, 2004; and 333-123245 effective March 10, 2005) of Quixote Corporation of our report dated September 15, 2008 relating to the financial statements, financial
statement schedule and effective operation of internal control over financial reporting which appears in the Form 10-K.

/s/GRANT
THORNTON LLP

Chicago,
Illinois
September 15, 2008

---
# C_2014071EN.01002401.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/24

---

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)

(Case T-718/13)

(2014/C 71/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States of America) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2013 given in Case R 1812/2012-2 and accordingly acknowledge the validity of the contested trade mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2013 given in Case R 1812/2012-2 and accordingly acknowledge the validity of the contested trade mark.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘DIRECTV’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 163 138

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked partially the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and revoked the Community trade mark in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 CTMR

---
No. 10-6393.

#### Marlin E. Jones, Petitioner v. City of North Platte, Nebraska, et al.

562 U.S. 1047, 131 S. Ct. 603,

178 L. Ed. 2d 440,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8907,

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 579.
No. 10-6950.

#### In re Michael S. Gorbey, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1174, 131 S. Ct. 991,

178 L. Ed. 2d 820,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 75.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1028, 131 S. Ct. 587, 178 L. Ed. 2d 428, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8736.
11-i

CHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 11-1
11-1

CHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 METHODOLOGY

The consumer subgroup analysis evaluates impacts on any identifiable groups or 

consumers who may be disproportionately affected by any national energy conservation

standard. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will conduct this analysis as one of the analyses 

for the notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE will accomplish this, in part, by analyzing the LCC 

and payback periods (PBPs) for those consumers that fall into any identifiable groups. DOE 

plans to evaluate variations in regional energy prices and variations in energy use that might 

affect the net present value of a standard to consumer subpopulations. To the extent possible, 

DOE will obtain estimates of each input parameter’s variability and will consider this variability 

in its calculation of consumer impacts.

DOE will determine the impact on consumer subgroups using the LCC Spreadsheet 

Model, which allows for different data inputs. The standard LCC analysis (described in chapter 

8) focuses on the households that use furnace fans. DOE can use the LCC Spreadsheet Model to 

analyze the LCC for any subgroup by sampling only that subgroup. (Chapter 8 explains in detail 

the inputs to the model used in determining LCC and PBPs.) In the case of furnace fans, possible 

subgroups DOE may choose to consider are: (1) low-income households, and (2) senior citizens.

DOE will be especially sensitive to increases in the purchase price of the product due to 

new standards, to avoid negative impacts on identifiable population groups that may not be able 

to afford significant increases in product price.
2012-0902.

#### State v. Belton.

Lucas App. No. CR0200802934000. On appellant’s application for reopening pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.06. Application denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36263-36264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17645]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[NAFTA-002364]


The Paper Magic Group Incorporated, Reynosa, Mexico; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement

[[Page 36264]]

Implementation Act and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, 
Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 USC 
2331), an investigation was initiated on April 30, 1998, in response to 
a petition filed on April 23, 1998 on behalf of workers at The Paper 
Magic Group Inc., Reynosa, Mexico.
    During the course of the investigation it was revealed that the 
workers' firm was located outside of the United States. Therefore, 
further investigation would serve no purpose and the investigation has 
been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 15th day of June 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-17645 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### Adelaid Trummer, Respondent, v Eastchester Union Free School District, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 340]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered April 30, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986] ; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 62394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DOD-2011-OS-0109]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Notice to Delete a System of Records.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is deleting a systems 
of record notice from its existing inventory of record systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
November 7, 2011 unless comments are received which result in a 
contrary determination.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    * Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center 
Drive, East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, 
including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS 
Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington 
Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-
1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense 
systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 
552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are 
available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete one 
system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed 
deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act 
of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a 
new or altered system report.

    Dated: October 4, 2011.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

Deletion:
DMDC 14
    Health Record Tracking System (HRTS) (December 27, 2010, 75 FR 
81246).

Reason:
    Based on a review of system of records notice, DMDC 14, it was 
determined that this system is no longer being used. Following the 
National Archives and Records Administration retention and disposal 
schedule, all records have been destroyed.
[FR Doc. 2011-25984 Filed 10-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
#### Stephanie Olson, Respondent, v David Olson, Appellant.

[67 NYS3d 461]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tandra L. Dawson, J.), entered on or about August 9, 2016, which, after a fact-finding hearing, granted plaintiff wife’s application for a final order of protection and issued a five-year order of protection against defendant husband upon a finding of aggravating circumstances, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered November 15, 2016, which denied the husband’s motion for a recusal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The credibility determinations of the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Court are supported by the record and are entitled to deference. We see no basis to disturb them *(Matter of Kondor v Kondor,*109 AD3d 660 [2d Dept 2013]; *Matter of F.B. v W.B.,*248 AD2d 119 [1st Dept 1998]). The court’s findings that the husband committed the family offenses of third-degree assault and second-degree harassment, which caused the wife physical injury on two separate occasions, were supported by the record. The presence of these aggravating circumstances warranted the issuance of a five-year final order of protection in plaintiff’s favor as reasonably necessary to provide meaningful protection to plaintiff (see Family Ct Act *612§§ 827 [a] [vii]; 842; *Matter of Coumba F. v Mamdou D.,*102 AD3d 634 [1st Dept 2013]; *Matter of Mistretta v Mistretta,*85 AD3d 1034 [2d Dept 2011]). The fact that a temporary order of protection was in effect during the pendency of the lengthy proceedings before the IDV Court does not dictate a contrary result. In any case, the order of protection was issued in accordance with Domestic Relations Law §§ 240 and 252, which do not, under these circumstances, prescribe any time limit for its duration.

We have considered the husband’s remaining arguments, including those regarding the denial of his recusal motion, and find them unavailing.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135701 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135701 COA: 282039 Branch CC: 2007-048753-FC STEVEN DUANE DENT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 4, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

C ORRIGAN , J., not participating for the reasons stated in People v Parsons , order of the Supreme Court, entered March 6, 2007 (Docket No. 132975).

s0421 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2008

Clerk