alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.

 September 24, 2014

d0917

Order 

Clerk

September 24, 2014

148741

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148741

COA: 317110

Gladwin CC: 01-006657-FY

JAMES ALLEN BURKEEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2014 

order 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.
November 6, 2003 

MEMORANDUM 

To: GCD AMP Technical Work Group Members 

From: Jeff Lovich, Chief 

Subject: Draft Interim Annual Work Plan for FY2005-06

Attached is the Draft Interim Annual Work Plan describing proposed monitoring and research 

activities for the USGS, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center for FY2005-06. The title 

“Draft Interim...” requires some explanation. Our plan is to have this document available for your 

review about one week prior to the November TWG meeting. During the intervening week, we will be 

updating the document with additional budget details and providing you with the Interim Annual Work 

Plan at the meeting. Following your input, the GCMRC will revise the Interim plan for presentation as 

the Final Annual Work Plan at the January 2004 AMWG meeting. 

This plan differs from the budget you saw at the October meeting in that it also includes a proposed 

FY06 budget. We are eager to get ahead of the annual budget planning cycle and into a more strategic 

multi-year cycle that gives the AMP the ability to identify budget shortfalls in advance and have an 

opportunity to prepare budget requests for increased appropriated funding, as desired. Accommodating 

the needs of the AMP in FY05 required some painful recommendations for program cuts. 

Numerous contingencies place constraints on our ability to project the budget needs and these are 

discussed in Chapter 1. One of the most significant challenges is fitting this proposal into the overall 

framework of a core monitoring plan, with special emphasis on activities related to implementation of 

the Temperature Control Device in FY07. At the last TWG meeting you instructed GCMRC to begin 

preparation of a draft core monitoring plan for discussion at the January 2004 AMWG meeting. We are 

on track to meet that deadline. 

Finally, a couple of comments are in order regarding the “Project Summary Sheets.” At earlier 

meetings I heard comments from TWG and AMWG members who wanted more information than was 

available from the budget spreadsheet without having to flip through a lengthy traditional Annual 

Work Plan. The new format is an attempt by GCMRC to provide you with a useful tool for evaluating 

our proposed projects. Included are details (when available) on the amount of money that is being 

spent in house vs. through contract, amount of money on salary vs. operations, funding history of the 

project, and the impact(s) of funding reductions on the project/program. I hope you find this new 

format useful in your evaluation and look forward to your comments on how future versions can be 

improved.

United States Department of the Interior 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CENTER

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER

2255 NORTH GEMINI DRIVE, MS-9394 

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001

928 556-7094 Telephone

928 556-7092 Fax
EXHIBIT 31.1



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Paul C. Hudson, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Broadway Financial Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



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 small business issuer, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuers
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                              
|------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2004            
|                              
|/s/ Paul C. Hudson            
|Signature                     
|                              
|Paul C. Hudson                
|Chief Executive Officer       
|Broadway Financial Corporation
#### Lyon *et al. v.*Davis *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

May 12, 1890.)

Assignment for Benefit of Creditors—Preferences—Husband and Wife.

An assignment for benefit of creditors is not rendered invalid by preferring the wife and sister-in-law of the assignor *for bona fide*debts, for money loaned by them to him.

*Appeal from*special term, Dutchess county.

Action by William H. Lyon and Joseph H. T. Martin, against James M. Davis, Charles M. Kittredge, and Jennie-Davis, to set aside an assignment ■for benefit of creditors executed by said James M. Davis to his co-defendants. The assignment contained several preferences, of which the first - was for •$1,500 to the debtor’s wife and assignee, and the second was for $300 to his -sister-in-law, both for alleged loans. Plaintiff assails the validity of these preferences. The following findings were filed by the court: “I find that the ■debt to the sister-in-law of the assignor is not fictitious, but was a good and valid debt for money lent by her to him. I find that the $1,500 secured to -the wife of the assignor was a good and valid debt; that she earned the money in her separate business; that she kept boarders under an agreement with her husband that she should have the profits of the business, and that he would -pay the rent for his board; the wife was to, and did, pay all the bills; that "the money was deposited in the name of the husband for convenience, and that it was drawn out; and the wife took possession of it, and lent it to a stranger, and, when it was paid back to her, she loaned it to her husband, and ■he received it from her individual hands and possession. I find that the complaint be dismissed, with costs. J. F. Barnard, Justice of Supreme Court. ” From the judgment thereupon entered the plaintiffs appeal. For former report, see *7 N. T.*Supp. 564.

Argued before Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Freeman & Green,*for appellants. *IT. H. Rustís,*for respondents.

*183Dykman, J.

The plaintiffs are judgment creditors of James M. Davis, and they commenced this action, as such creditors, to set aside an assignment for the benefit of creditors made by Davis to the defendants. The cause was tried before a judge without a jury, and he decided in favor of the validity of the assignment. He found all the facts against the plaintiffs upon sufficient evidence, and his conclusions of law resulted from the facts so found. The decision of the case depended upon facts alone, and as they were found and determined so went the judgment. We concur with the trial judge respecting the indebtedness of the assignor to his wife, and in his conclusion that the debt was properly preferred in the assignment. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                          DURA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      Years Ended December 31,
                                                             ---------------------------------------
                                                                1996            1995           1994
                                                             ---------      ---------       --------
<S>                                                          <C>            <C>             <C>
Net income                                                   $  10,128      $  10,126       $  2,580
                                                             ---------      ---------       --------
                                                             ---------      ---------       --------

Weighted average number of Class A
  common stock                                                   1,434              -           -

Weighted average number of Class B
  common stock                                                   5,000          4,967          3,423

Dilutive effect of outstanding stock options
  after application of the treasury stock
  method (1)                                                        28             22              8
                                                             ---------      ---------       --------
Common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding                                                    6,462          4,989          3,431
                                                             ---------      ---------       --------
                                                             ---------      ---------       --------
Net income per common and common
  equivalent share (2)                                       $    1.57      $    2.03       $   0.75
                                                             ---------      ---------       --------
                                                             ---------      ---------       --------
</TABLE>

(1)  Cheap stock is included in the calculation for all periods presented in
     accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
     Commission.

(2)  The calculation of net income per common and common equivalent share for
     the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994 are the same on a primary
     and fully diluted basis.
Honorabla Y. C. smith

**County Attorney**  Boaqu* **county** hridian, Texas

Upinion hubar 

## O-5546 RaL Ho9 

### ohe Boa.rd oi Bohool Trurteba or a Rural Ii:@% %ahool Dlatwlab legally pa9 trRVeliQ$ BXQbZi8rO Of it8 **supoointandent** lmourred for purpoaaa na~easary in the 

### eonauot

or the l qhQOl?

**te saknowled~;tt** 

receipt **nf yaw**  **lrrttffr** in reply **to our**  **rsqueat for**  furthor informtim, vnri hav~r m&tat&d you;a ln~uiry aa ea to uauke the guortlon raad a8 follows: “Y&y Ma Rasrd of dwo1 Yhateau of a Uur8Z.thigh Yahw1 Ulatrfot lq*lly pay travel(i6-i~ sxyaams of its uuperlatmdent tnaurrsd for purposea noaesaary in the aonduct of t&e #ohool?’ iieplying to the fomgo~ng, we yuot6 pcra#eph 2 OSArticle 2827. rkloh reada aa follcwaz

“Xmal mhool fmd8 fram diotr%ot taxes, tuition Isea of pup218 not entitled tatMe tu%tion and other loeel amwmm #mybo used **for** the gurpoaea lnuaerrted for Z%trcer **and** oouuty f'uadr and for purobaalng appli4naos and auppliacr

, for the Qayl@#ntes lnsuranoe premiuma, **janltorr** a,ndother ompf~yefs, for buyIn& arhwl altea, buying, buildi% and ropbirlng aud ~rentlng sob001 Heuser, and fer other purposw neoasrary in tke oonduat of tha publio school8 to be determined by the ,Foard oP ‘Wustew, the moomats and vouoharr for uounty **diatrieta** to bs approved by the aounlp **ruporintandant~** provided, that rhasr tha state avollable adoe fund in any olt~ OP dlatriot is aufilclont to mscllnteln thv aohaolo thetwoS in any 960 

### for 4t 

### Ieme 

### l

ighght; month8 , Wad 10oVr 4 8WQb8, au#h Sua'ph8 My be expanded for the ,purpoeaa wntioned heroin. hto 1919, p. 189." Aeta 1905, p. 263;

Paws the rarogoing it will be swm that tha trwtoaa of 4 rural high s&o01 diasrlot maypay the travelin& 

### axpe.naea of it8 superintendent **if** 

### the **Board of**  Trustees **of ’**  **t&e dArtHot**  duternfnea that aaae were Pncurrod for purpoaasl neoeaaar9 in she aoxkduotiof Zta aahools.

Anrmvrod Soot. 22. lQ&l
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**








I,
      Gary
      Herman, certify that:





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Digital Creative Development Corporation
      (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 (the
      "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.






Date:
      June 29, 2007






/
      s /
      Gary Herman





Gary
      Herman


Chief
      Executive Officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1991 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

of Agriculture to carry out the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in 

addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 

and the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Federal Lands Recre5 ation Enhancement Act Extension Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1991 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL 

2 LANDS RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT. 

3 Section 810 of the Federal Lands Recreation En4 hancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6809) is amended to read as 

5 follows: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 810. SUNSET PROVISION. 

7 ‘‘The authority of the Secretary to carry out this title 

8 shall terminate on September 30, 2017.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19467]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permit issued.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower 
Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8030; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 27, 2021, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit 
application received. The permit was issued on August 30, 2021, to:

Permit No. 2022-004

1. Dale Andersen

Erika N. Davis,
Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-19467 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of 
Brunswick Technologies, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-36921 and 333-47915) 
of our report dated February 12, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated 
financial statements of Brunswick Technologies, Inc. as of December 31, 1998 
and 1997, and for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997, and 1996, which 
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                        /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Portland, Maine
March 30, 1999
Merrill Schneider, OSB #77336 

merrillschneider@schneiderlaw.com 

Schneider Kerr & Robichaux 

PO Box 14490 

Portland, Oregon 97293 

Phone: 503-255-9092 

Fax: 503-255-9145 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

SCOTT WALDEN, 

Plaintiff, 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

3:15-CV-01928-BR 

v. 

ORDER FOR ATTORNEY 

FEES UNDER42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

The court finds and orders an attorney fee of $10,510 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The 

attorney fee of $6,458.16 allowed pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act will be refunded to 

Plaintiff upon counsel's receipt of the allowed 406(b) fee awarded. 

Dated this_' __ day of_~-------' 2018. 

Anna Brown 

United States District Court Judge
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norman Johnson, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), rendered July 13, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*414We have reviewed, the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### William A. Cain, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Catherine A. Cain, et al., Respondents, v Greater New York Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated April 8, 1986, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendant’s third and seventh affirmative defenses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action was instituted to recover damages as a result of first, second and third degree burns sustained by the infant plaintiff, William A. Cain, a New York resident, and included a derivative claim for damages sustained by his father, Robert Cain. The accident occurred on December 1, 1984, at the defendant’s Alpine Boy Scout Camp, located in New Jersey, when the infant plaintiff attempted to light a fire in a propane gas container he found on the premises. The defendant, a corporation headquartered in New York City, asserted in its answer as its third affirmative defense that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred under the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Statute (NJ Stat Annot § 2A:53A-7); as its seventh affirmative defense, the defendant asserted that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the New Jersey comparative negligence statute *(see,*NJ Stat Annot § 2A-:15-5.1), which bars any recovery by a plaintiff found to be more than 50% negligent. The court determined that these New Jersey statutes are unavailable as defenses in this action because of New York’s greater interest in the specific issues raised in this litigation *(cf., Neumeier v Kuehner,*31 NY2d 121). We agree.

New York long ago abandoned the doctrine of charitable immunity *(see, Bing v Thunig,*2 NY2d 656). It more recently adopted a policy of permitting diminution of, rather than barring absolutely, recovery by a plaintiff whose injury was *244proximately caused by a defendant’s tortious conduct but whose own conduct was also a factor, however great or small, contributing to the happening of the accident *(see,*CPLR 1411). Like these New York rules, the New Jersey statutes on which the third and seventh affirmative defenses are based are loss allocating rather than conduct regulating *(see, Schultz v Boy Scouts,*65 NY2d 189). New Jersey, therefore, has, at best, a minimal interest in determining the right of recovery or extent of the remedy available in this action between parties who are not its domiciliaries *(cf., Schultz v Boy Scouts, supra).*By contrast, New York has an important interest in protecting the resident plaintiffs, whose relationship with the defendant arose because of the latter’s presence in this State *(cf., Schultz v Boy Scouts, supra; Babcock v Jackson,*12 NY2d 473). Under the circumstances, the challenged affirmative defenses were properly dismissed. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.