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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 133553(243)(247) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, ROSA WOODS, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 133553 COA: 256394 Wayne CC: 95-508913-CZ WILLIAMS & SON PLUMBING & HEATING, INC., a Michigan Corporation; RICK WILLIAMS, Individually, a/k/a RECARDO WILLIAMS, Individually, and THEODIS THOMAS, Individually, Jointly, and Severally, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s July 30, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, becau se it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. The motion for miscellaneous relief is DENIED.

d1022 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.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
Order filed, December 18, 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 01011

- CR

____________ FRANKIE RAYSHAWN HIL L

- TURNER , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 434th Judicial District Court

For t Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10

- DCR

- 056064



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due December 4, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been f iled with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order. We order Karen Woolsey, the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

.PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 73 (Friday, April 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 17814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8735]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Siuslaw Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Siuslaw Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Corvallis, OR. The purpose of the meeting is to Review RAC FY09 
Business, Elect Chairperson, Set FY09 Overhead Rate, Information Share, 
Public Forum and 2009 Project Review/Recommendations.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 24, 2009 beginning at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the EPA--Western Ecology 
Division, 200 S.W. 35 Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97333.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joni Quarnstrom, Siuslaw National 
Forest, 541/750-7075 or write to Forest Supervisor, Siuslaw National 
Forest, 4077 SW Research Way, Corvallis, OR 97339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A public input period will begin before 2009 
project review.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
Barnie T. Gyant,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-8735 Filed 4-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000751683
<NAME> COLUMBIA I-A 9/30/96
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         127,594
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,690
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,426
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               140,858
<PP&E>                                       1,458,211
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,364,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,351
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                    10,485,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,395,262)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,779
<SALES>                                        241,843
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               245,191
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,067
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               109,806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (60,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                176,318
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            176,318
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   176,318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2639 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2639

         To suspend temporarily the duty on bisphenol A Bis(3-
         methacryloyloxypropyl)ether substituted dimethacylate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2012

 Ms. Klobuchar introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on bisphenol A Bis(3-
         methacryloyloxypropyl)ether substituted dimethacylate.

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

SECTION 1. BISPHENOL A BIS(3-METHACRYLOYLOXYPROPYL)ETHER SUBSTITUTED 
              DIMETHACYLATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Bisphenol A Bis(3-  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        methacryloyloxypr                                                  31/2015.......
                        opyl)ether
                        substituted
                        dimethacylate
                        (CAS No. 27689-12-
                        9) (provided for
                        in subheading
                        2916.14.20)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 LVNV FUNDING LLC, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 34,637 4 ROSEMARIE P. BUSTAMANTE 5 AND JOHN DOE (IF MARRIED), 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY 8 Matthew J. Sandoval, District Judge 9 Elizabeth V. Friedenstein 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Rosemarie P. Bustamante 13 Las Vegas, NM 14 Pro Se Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 ZAMORA, Judge. 17 {1} Rosemarie Bustamante (Appellant) app eals from the district court’s order 18 awarding summary judgment in favor of LVNV Funding LLC (Appellee). This 19Court’s notice proposed to dismiss because th e notice of appeal was not filed with the 1 district court clerk and the time for doi ng so had expired. Appellant filed a 2 memorandum in opposition to the proposed di sposition. Not persuaded by Appellant’s 3 arguments, we dismiss the appeal. 4 {2} Appellant does not dispute the facts relied upon by this Court in its proposed 5 disposition but asks this Court to apply the Duranpresumption of ineffective 6 assistance of counsel where the notice of appeal is not filed within the time limit 7 required. [MIO 1-2] See State v. Duran , 1986-NMCA-125, ¶¶ 3, 6, 105 N.M. 231, 731 8 P.2d 374 (stating that there is a conclusive presumption of ineffective assistance of 9 counsel where notice of appeal is not f iled within the time limit required). However, 10 the Duranpresumption primarily applies to criminal cases and has not been extended 11 to civil cases such as this. 12 {3} Recognizing that appellate requirements for the time and place of filing are 13 mandatory preconditions absent error on the part of the court, Appellant asserts that 14 the district court erred in failing to co mply with Rule 12-209 NMRA, by not mailing 15 her a copy of the docket sheet as a self-represented litigant. [MIO 5] See Govich v. N. 16 Am. Sys., Inc. , 1991-NMSC-061, ¶ 12, 112 N.M. 226, 814 P.2d 94; see also Santa Fe 17 Pac. Trust, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque , 2012-NMSC-028, ¶ 23, 285 P.3d 595 (“Only 18 the most unusual circumstances beyond the c ontrol of the parties—such as error on 192 the part of the court—will warrant overlooking procedural defects.” (internal 1 quotation marks and citation omitted)). Rule 12-209 states: “The district court clerk 2 shall send a copy of this docket sheet to all counsel of record.” However, we see no 3 relation between this requirement and Appe llant’s failure to file a timely notice of 4 appeal with the district court. 5 {4} For these reasons and those stated in the notice of proposed disposition, we 6 dismiss the appeal. 7 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

12 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 13

14 TIMOTHY L. GARICA, Judge 15
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2665 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on phenyl isocyanate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on phenyl 

isocyanate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PHENYL ISOCYANATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.14 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 phenyl isocyanate) is amended by striking the date in the 

7 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2665 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2015346EN.01002901.xml

| 19.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Inditex v OHIM — Ansell (ZARA)

(Case T-584/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Proceedings for revocation - Community word mark ZARA - Genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 346/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell (Moshi, Tanzania)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1118/2013-2), relating to proceedings for revocation between Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell, on one hand, and Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex), on the other hand.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

1

---
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1274 

To permanently exempt payments made from the Railroad Unemployment 

Insurance Account from sequestration under the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2023 

Mrs. FISCHER (for herself, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. BROWN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Budget 

A BILL 

To permanently exempt payments made from the Railroad 

Unemployment Insurance Account from sequestration 

under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 

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 TITLES. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Railroad Employee Eq5 uity and Fairness Act’’ or the ‘‘REEF Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 1274 IS

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS FROM THE RAILROAD 

2 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACCOUNT. 

3 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 235 of the Continued 

4 Assistance to Rail Workers Act of 2020 (subchapter III 

5 of title II of division N of Public Law 116–260; 2 U.S.C. 

6 906 note) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)— 

8 (A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2); 

9 and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘subsection (a)—’’ and in11 serting ‘‘subsection (a) shall take effect 7 days 

12 after the date of enactment of the Continued 

13 Assistance to Rail Workers Act of 2020.’’; and 

14 (2) by striking subsection (c). 

15 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub16 section (a) shall apply as if enacted on the day before the 

17 date on which the national emergency concerning the novel 

18 coronavirus disease (COVID–19) outbreak declared by the 

19 President on March 13, 2020, under the National Emer20 gencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) terminates. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Filed 5/8/14 P. v. Ellis CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. TOMMY LAMONT ELLIS, Defendant and Appellant. D064978

(Super. Ct. No. SCD246881)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of San Diego County, Eugenia Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed. Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal , for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Respondent. Tommy Lamont Ellis entered into a plea agreement under whic h he pleaded guilty to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). The parties agreed to dismiss the ba lance of the charges and stipulated to a term of three years, stayed pending completion of drug court probation. Ellis was found not suitable for drug court.2 Ellis requested and receiv ed a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, ostensibly to seek removal of trial counsel. At the hearing Ellis did not request replacement of counsel but argued for a drug program. Ellis was sentenced to the stipulated term of three years in prison. Ellis filed a timely notice of appeal but did not request a cer tificate of probable

cause. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ) raising possible but not arguable issues. We offered E llis the opportunity to file hi s own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Since this is an appeal fro m a guilty plea, it is sufficient to note that Ellis admitted transporting methamphetamine.
DISCUSSION As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating she is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra , 386 U.S. 738, the brief identifies possi ble but not arguable issues: 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to replace appointed counsel? 2. Whether the court should have ap pointed new counsel to argue a possible motion to withdraw the guilty plea based on ineffectiv e assistance of counsel?3 We have reviewed the entir e record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not fo und any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Ellis on this appeal.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

IRION, J.
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

06-3075

MICHAEL AKERS, Petitioner,

v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent.

__________ ________________ DECIDED: May 3, 2006

__________________________ Before MICHEL, Chief Judge , NEWMAN, and MAYER, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Michael Akers appeals the fi nal decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, affirming his removal from the Department of the Treasury. Akers v. Dep’t of the Treasury , 100 M.S.P.R. 270 (2005). We affirm

. We must affirm the board’s decision unle ss it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in acco rdance with law; obtained without procedures required by law, rule or regulation having been followed; or unsuppor ted by substantialevidenc e. See 5 U.S. C. § 7703(c) (2000). Akers adm its that he faile d to report income earned by painting houses on his federal income tax filin g s for 1999 and 20 00. Because he distributed flyers and solicited customers, substantial evidence s upports the board’s conclusion t hat the unreported income derived from an outside busines s activity, not a hobby. Therefore, in light of the board’s credibility determinations, the length of Akers’ service at the Inter nal Revenue Service (“IRS”), and department briefings c oncerning his obligations to repo rt outside business ac tivities and outside income, the board pr operly foun d that he willfu lly un de rstated his indiv i dua l income tax liability, in violation of section 1203(d)(9) of the IRS Restructur ing and Reform Act of 1998 (“RRA”), Pub. L. No. 105-206, tit. I, § 1203, 112 Stat. 685, 720-21 (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 7804). In view of his violation and the I R S Commissioner’s finding that removal was appropriate, the department was required to remove him. See James v. Tablerion , 363 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also RRA § 1203(c)(3). As such, the board properly affirmed Akers’ removal

.

06-3075 2
Ex-10.1 Participation Agreement - Scott A. Edmonds



 





EXHIBIT 10.1




CHICO’S FAS, INC.

EXECUTIVE BONUS PROGRAMS




PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT




     This Participation Agreement is entered into this 3rd day of March, 2008, by and
between Chico’s FAS, Inc. (the “Company”) and Scott A. Edmonds (the “Participant”).



     WHEREAS, the Participant is a key employee of the Company selected by the Company to
participate in one or more executive bonus programs (the “Programs”); and



     WHEREAS, as a condition to receiving any bonus payable pursuant to any of the Programs, the
Participant acknowledges and agrees to be bound by the following condition:




Repayment of Bonus. If (a) within the two-year period immediately following payment
of any Bonus under any Program the Company is required to prepare an accounting
restatement due to the material noncompliance of the Company, as a result of
misconduct, with any then applicable financial reporting requirement under the
securities laws, and (b) the Participant is subject to automatic forfeiture under
Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 or knowingly engaged in the misconduct,
was grossly negligent in engaging in the misconduct, knowingly failed to prevent the
misconduct or was grossly negligent in failing to prevent the misconduct, then the
Participant shall reimburse the Company for the amount of any such Bonus paid under
any Program.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Participation Agreement on the date first
written above.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CHICO’S FAS, INC. 

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Kent Kleeberger
 	 
	 	 	Title: EVP & CFO                         	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	PARTICIPANT: 

 	 
	 	            Scott A. Edmonds
 	 
	 	Participant’s Name — Please Print       	 
	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	            /s/ Scott A. Edmonds
 	 
	 	Participant’s Signature