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

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

March 3 1 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk March 3 1 , 2017

15 517 8 ( 130 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appell ee

, SC: 15 517 8

v COA: 3 24885

Wayne CC: 1 4

- 00 0744

- 01

- FC

MARVIN DWAYNE NOBLE

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. _________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appell ant to extend the time

for filing his reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on March 13 , 2017 , is acce pted

for filing

.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 86]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-32313]



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

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

36 CFR Part 800


Protection of Historic Properties

AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

ACTION: Acceptance of supplemental comments on proposed revision of 
current regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) issued 
a notice of proposed rulemaking, 59 FR 50396, October 3, 1994, on 
changes to its regulations on protection of historic properties, with 
60 days provided for public comment. In response to numerous requests 
for extension of time to comment beyond the December 2, 1994 deadline, 
the Council extended the comment period for an additional 30 days. The 
current January 3, 1995 deadline remains in effect and will not be 
extended further. However, in recognition of the concerns expressed by 
some commenters for additional time to do detailed analyses, the 
Council will accept supplemental submissions from any commenters who 
wish to amplify or amend their initial comments. Accordingly, the 
Council will keep the record open through February 2, 1995 for the 
purpose of receiving these submissions. Any materials received on or 
before that date will be fully considered as part of the public comment 
record as the Council moves forward with its consideration of 
regulatory revisions.

DATES: The date on or before which comments must be received remains 
January 3, 1995. The Council will keep the record open through February 
2, 1995 for consideration of materials supplementing comments received 
on or before January 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the Executive Director, 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW., Suite 809, Washington, DC 20004. Fax 202-606-8647 or 8672.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Woronowicz, Information Assistant, Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 809, 
Washington, DC 20004, (202) 606-8503.
Robert D. Bush,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 94-32313 Filed 12-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-10-M
Amendment #7 to the Trust Agreement



 Exhibit 10(h) 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN 
  
 TO 
  
 GRANTOR TRUST AGREEMENT 

 
 THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the ninth of May, 1997, by and between THE BANK
OF NEW YORK COMPANY, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”), and THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
New York (hereinafter referred to as the “Trustee”), 
  
 W  I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H : 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Trustee entered into a Grantor Trust Agreement dated as of November 16, 1993 (as amended from time to time, the
“Agreement”); 
  
 WHEREAS, Article TWELFTH of the
Agreement provides that the Company may amend the Agreement; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Agreement; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Trustee agree as follows, effective May 9, 1997: 
  
 Exhibit I to the Agreement is amended by deleting Exhibit I in its entirety and substituting therefor Exhibit I in the form attached hereto. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed in their respective names by their duly
authorized officers under their corporate seals as of the day and year first above written. 
  

									
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 THE BANK OF NEW YORK COMPANY, INC.

				
	/s/    RUSSELL P. WELLINGER        	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/     DENO D. PAPAGEORGE        
	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Deno D. Papageorge
 Senior Executive Vice President

			
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK

				
	/s/    CATHERINE J. PLATT        	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/    GERARD STAFFORD-SMITH        
	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	Gerard Stafford-Smith
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	Assistant Vice President

  

 -1- 








 Exhibit 10(h) 
  
 EXHIBIT I 
  

	1.	The Bank of New York Company, Inc. Excess Benefit Plan 

  

	2.	The Bank of New York Company, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan 

  

	3.	Agreements between the Bank of New York Company, Inc. and the following persons: 

  

			
	 Individual

	  	 Date of Agreement


	 Alan R. Griffith
	  	October 11, 1994
	 Joseph A. Grimaldi
	  	April 11, 1995
	 Gerald L. Hassell
	  	April 11, 1995
	 Newton P.S. Merrill
	  	October 11, 1994
	 Donald R. Monks
	  	January 14, 1997
	 Robert J. Mueller
	  	October 11, 1994
	 Richard A. Pace
	  	October 11, 1994
	 Thomas A. Renyi
	  	October 11, 1994

  

 -2-
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 January 31, 2014

t0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

147963-4

COUNTY OF ALCONA and ALCONA

COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 147963-4

COA: 301532, 302134 

Alcona CC: 08-001111-NM

ROBSON ACCOUNTING, INC., d/b/a

REHMANN ROBSON, and REHMANN

GROUP, L.L.C., d/b/a REHMANN GROUP,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 24, 2013 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Javon Maurice FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1636

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 30, 2019

Rick A. Sichta and Susanne K. Sichta of The Sichta Firm, LLC, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED . *See**Hart v. State* , 255 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Ray, C.J., and Roberts and Jay, JJ., concur.
Dionne K. THOMPSON, petitioner, v. MORRIS HEIGHTS HEALTH CENTER, INC.

No. 12M125.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHANIE FORBES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUN LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00915-VC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court has been advised by the Certification of ADR Session filed on September 25, 

2017 that the parties have resolved this case through mediation. (Re: Dkt. No. 25). Therefore, it 

is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. All deadlines and hearings in the 

case are vacated. Any pending motions are moot.

The parties retain the right to reopen this action within 60 days of this Order if the 

settlement is not consummated. If a request to reinstate the case is not filed and served on 

opposing counsel within 60 days, the dismissal will be with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2017

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge
[Wells Fargo Logo] **Wells Fargo Bank, NA  Document Custody**1015 - 10th Ave SE Minneapolis, MN 55014**ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA**Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Company") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has determined that the servicing criteria are applicable in regards to the servicing platform as of and for the period as follows: Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction level reporting required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the company provides document custody services, excluding any publicly issued transactions issued by any government sponsored entity (the "Platform"). Applicable Servicing Criteria: The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). Management of the Company has determined that all other servicing criteria set forth in item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform. Period: As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2007 (the "Period").  With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria: 1.The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. 2.The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. In performing this assessment, the Company used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB. 3.Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance as of and for the Period. **WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION**B y :   / s /   S h a r i   G i l l u n d ****Its: Senior Vice President Dated: February 29, 2008
Elizabeth HELLSTRON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-8996.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, denied.
EX-10.01






AMENDMENT TO TERM LOAN AGREEMENT




February 3, 2009



Oak Grove Commercial Mortgage LLC.


2177 Youngman Avenue


St. Paul, MN 55116



Ladies and Gentlemen:



This is to confirm the agreement of Oak Grove Commercial Mortgage, LLC (“Lender”) and MMA
Financial Holdings, Inc. (“Borrower”) to amend the Term Loan Agreement dated as of December
18, 2008 between Borrower and Lender (the “Agreement”) as follows:



1. Section 2.1(b) of the Agreement is deleted and replaced with the following:




“(b) Subsequent Funding of Term Note. The Lender agrees, subject to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, and subject to the satisfaction of all the conditions in
Section 3.2 of this Agreement, to make an additional advance to the Borrower on a date not
later than March 31, 2009 specified by the Borrower on at least two Business Days’ prior
notice to the Lender (the “Subsequent Funding Date”) in an original principal amount
equal to Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000).



2. Section 3.2(b) of the Agreement is deleted and replaced with the following:




“(b) the Acquisition Agreement (as it may be amended from time to time) is in full
force and effect on the Subsequent Funding Date and the transactions contemplated by the
Acquisition Agreement have not yet then been consummated;”



3. Section 3.2(c) of the Agreement is deleted.



4 The Address for Notices for Oak Grove Commercial Mortgage, LLC on the signature page of the
Agreement is as follows::




“Oak Grove Commercial Mortgage, LLC


2177 Youngman Avenue #300


St. Paul, Minnesota 55116


Telecopier: (651) 332-8505


Attention: David Williams and Kevin Filter”



5. Except as provided in paragraphs 1 to 4 above, the Agreement is in full force and effect and
unamended.



Please sign a copy of this document, which, when it is signed by both the Borrower and the Lender,
will constitute a binding agreement between them.



Very truly yours,



	 
	MMA Financial Holdings, Inc.

(Borrower)

By: /s/ Michael L. Falcone

Name: Michael L. Falcone

Title: President and CEO

AGREED TO:

	Oak Grove Commercial Mortgage, LLC

(Lender)

By: /s/ David A. Williams

Name: David A. Williams

Title: President and CEO







The undersigned guarantors acknowledge the foregoing amendment and agree that their liability and
obligations as guarantors of the Borrower’s obligations under the Agreement is not in any way
limited or impaired by reason of such amendment.

 


MMA Mortgage Investment Corporation



By: /s/ Michael L. Falcone

Name: Michael L. Falcone

Title: President and CEO


 


Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC



By: /s/ Michael L. Falcone

Name: Michael L. Falcone

Title: President and CEO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-2285

DOROTHY M. JEFFRIES, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

WILLIAM CHAVIS, d/b/a Cape Fear Upholstery of Fayetteville, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:08-cv-00519-BO) 

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2010 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dorothy M. Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Dorothy Jeffries appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on her personal property damage complaint. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Jeffries that 

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation. Despite this warning, Jeffries failed to make 

timely, specific objections to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation. 

 The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 

(4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Jeffries has waived appellate review by filing objections that 

were neither timely nor specific to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation, after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 

deny Jeffries’s motion for a transcript at government expense 

and affirm the judgment of the district court. 

 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

2 
3 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
Torrance BUNCH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1194.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
1

Office of Global Policy and Strategy 

March 10, 2023

Danish Minister of Health and Danish Medicines Agency Meet with 

FDA to Discuss Future Collaborations

Today, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Legislation, and International Affairs Andi

Fristedt and other FDA officials met with a delegation of Danish health officials led by 

Denmark’s Minister of the Interior and Health Sophie Løhde to discuss existing and 

potential future collaborations.

Accompanying Minister Løhde were officials from the Danish Medicines Agency 

(DKMA), the national pharmaceutical regulatory authority in Denmark. The DKMA

authorizes and inspects pharmaceutical companies and licenses medicinal products in 

the Danish market, monitors adverse reactions from medical products, authorizes 

clinical trials, decides which medicines are eligible for reimbursement, and oversees the 

pharmacy industry.

During her meeting with Minister Løhde and DKMA officials, Fristedt emphasized that 

the FDA values its strong relationship with the medicines agency, which is among the 

leaders in the European Union on the use of big data, digital health, and real-world data.

Officials from the FDA’s Office of Global Policy and Strategy were also present in the 

meeting.

In addition to meeting with Deputy Commissioner Fristedt, the Danish delegation 

participated in a technical meeting with FDA subject matter experts from the Office of 

the Commissioner, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Center for 

Drug Evaluation and Research, and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. 

The delegation shared information on the Danish ENFORCE study, a national 

prospective cohort study to investigate the long-term effectiveness, safety, and 

durability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines used in Denmark. Other topics discussed included 

Denmark’s Data Analytics Centre, which uses real-world data in the regulatory 

environment, and regulatory approaches to combination products.
2

The meeting was facilitated in a hybrid fashion, with some participating in person at the 

FDA’s headquarters in White Oak, Maryland, and others participating virtually.

Accompanying Minister Løhde from the Danish delegation were Lars Bo Nielsen, 

Director General of the Danish Medicines Agency, Ambassador Stig P. Piras, Deputy 

Chief of Mission at the Embassy of Denmark in the United States, Svend Særkjær, 

Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Interior and Health, and Dorte Bech Vizard, 

Deputy Permanent Secretary for the Danish Ministry of Interior and Health, with 

responsibility for Patient Safety, Medicines, and Global Health.

###
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 of Noble Roman's, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul W. Mobley,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                       /s/ Paul W. Mobley
                                       ----------------------------------
                                       Paul W. Mobley
                                       Chief Financial Officer of
                                       Noble Roman's, Inc.

                                       November 7, 2002
Reginald Ray YORK, petitioner, v. Kamala D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California, et al.

No. 12-8544.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Dominque Jarvis FUDGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1784

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 19, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 05-40877

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus MARCUS TREMAIN ARNOLD, Defendant - Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division

_________________________________________________________________ Before KING, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges. E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: In a previous opinion in this case, after affirming Arnold’s convictions, we ordered a limited remand to the district court with respect to the enhancement of his sentence on Count One. United States v. Arnold, 467 F.3d 880, 888 (5th Cir. 2006). We did so because the record was inadequate to determine whether Arnold had beenprejudicedby the Government’s statutory citation error in its pre-trial Sentencing Enhancement Notice, which reflected the Government’s intention to seek a sentence of ten years to life. Arnold went to trial and was convicted. After his conviction, the Government corrected the citation error in an amendednotice, which1 Arnold was also sentenced to concurrent terms of 120 months

on Count Two and 60 months on Count Three. 2 now reflected that the Government intended to seek amandatory life sentence on Count One.1 Id. On remand, the district court, after holding a hearing, held that, regardless of whether the burden was onArnold to showhe had
no pretrial notice of the Government’s intention to seek a mandatory life sentence, or instead on the Government to show that he did have such notice, it was clear that Arnold was not adequately notified of the possibility of a mandatory life sentence. Further, he had been prejudiced because “[w]ithout notice that he would face a mandatory enhancement ... Arnold did not have adequate information to decide whether to enter a plea or go to trial. Therefore, Arnold’s substantive rights were affected.” The case is nowback before us. Based on the district court’s finding of prejudice, the sentence imposed on Count One is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for re-sentencing.

SENTENCE ON COUNT ONE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING.