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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136736 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

SEAN M. CHALFIN,

Plaintiff, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136736 

 COA: 274168 

Kalamazoo CC: 05-000598-NM 

JOSEPH J. JERKINS, JOSEPH J. JERKINS 

LAW OFFICES, LESLEY S. KRANENBERG, 

and KRANENBERG McCARTHY, P.C.,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

BLASKE & BLASKE, P.L.C., THOMAS H. 

BLASKE, and JOHN F. TURCK, IV, 

Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2008 

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. 

0915 

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. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6258

BILLY REID TREMBLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER DAVIS, Jail Officer; OFFICER WOODS, Jail Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00853-WO-WWD)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Reid Trembley, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Edwin DeCicco,

TEMPLETON & RAYNOR, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Billy Reid Trembley appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Trembley v. Davis,

No. 1:07-cv-00853-WO-WWD (M.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2008). We deny

Appellees’ pending motion to dismiss and amended motion to dismiss

as moot and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-QSB
for  the  period  ended September 30, 2002,  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Mark E. Larson, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund
Management  XXI,  Inc.,  the  Managing  General  Partner  of  the
Partnership,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  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 Partnership.


                           /s/ Mark E Larson
                               Mark E. Larson, Chief Financial Officer
                               AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                               Managing General Partner
                               November 1, 2002
# C_2011252EN.01004801.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2011 — Strack v European Commission

(Case F-119/07) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Mediation procedure - Act adversely affecting an official - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Consolidation - Provisional allowance)

2011/C 252/101

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of several decisions of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s requests for the conduct of a mediation procedure, for immediate intervention, for the adoption of dispute resolution measures and for payment of an allowance pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Common Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease. Application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 26 February 2007 refusing to pay Mr Strack a provisional allowance pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Common Rules. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 26 February 2007 refusing to pay Mr Strack a provisional allowance pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Common Rules.

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Strack in addition to its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Strack in addition to its own costs.

| 4. | Orders Mr Strack to pay half of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Strack to pay half of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.07.2008, p. 32.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0702 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOHN DANIEL FAILS , JR

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 17 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 11 2023

12/11/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0702
ex10_142.htm




Exhibit 10.14.2


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE


RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL, INC.


SENIOR MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN












The Raymond James Financial, Inc. Senior Management Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective as of the date set forth below, as follows:








	
1.  

	
Section 4.6 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:












“4.6           Bonus awards that exceed the amounts set forth below shall be paid, in part, in the form of shares of restricted stock, restricted stock unit awards, or other equity awards (in each case, that cover shares of the Company's common stock, $.01 par value), as follows:








	
Portion  of Bonus Award

	
Percentage that portion to be Paid in Stock or Other Equity Awards


	
$250,000.00 - $500,000.00

	
10% of the amount in excess of $250,000, if bonus award is at least $275,000.


 


	
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000.00

	
15% of the amount in excess of $500,000.00.


 


	
$1,000,000.01 - $2,000,000.00

	
20% of the amount in excess of $1,000,000.00.


	
$2,000,000.01 - $3,000,000.00

	
25% of the amount in excess of $2,000,000.00.


	
$3,000,000.01 or more

	
50% of the amount in excess of $3,000,000.00












The Committee may from time to time increase or decrease the percentage of the awards to be paid in shares of restricted stock, restricted stock unit awards, or other equity awards.







Shares of restricted stock, restricted stock unit awards, or other equity awards issued as part of awards pursuant to this Plan shall be issued pursuant to (including any applicable discount), and shall be subject to the restrictions set forth in, the 2007 Raymond James Stock Bonus Plan as it may be amended from time to time.”








	
2.  

	
Except as hereby amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

















RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL, INC.












/s/ J.P. Julien 


Signature







Jeffrey P. Julien 


Print Name







Executive Vice President & CFO 


Title







November 26, 2010 


Date







sd-537948
Exhibit 32.1





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 Sustainable Environmental Technologies Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Glaser, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:





The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: September 20, 2011


By:
/s/ Robert GlaserRobert GlaserChief Executive Officer
NO. 07-08-0166-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 22, 2008

______________________________

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

COMPANY AND MEGAN CHEN, APPELLANTS

V.

BRENDA SMITH, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;

NO. 153-218821-06; HONORABLE KEN CURRY, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before us is the joint motion of appellants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Company and Megan Chen and appellee BrendaSmith stating that the parties have

reached a full settlement of the underlying case. The parties ask us, according to their

agreement, to vacate the judgment of the trial court and render a judgment that appellee

take nothing with trial and appellate costs taxed against the party incurring them. We will

grant the motion. Accordingly, pursuant to the agreement of the parties and without regard

to the merits, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and render judgment that appellee
2

Brenda Smith take nothing on her claim against appellants State Farm Mutual Automobile

Insurance Company and Megan Chen. Costs in this Court and the trial court, according

to the agreement of the parties, are taxed against the party incurring them. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A).

Having disposed of this appeal at the request of the parties, we will not entertain a

motion for rehearing and our mandate shall issue forthwith.

James T. Campbell

 Justice
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-545V Filed: October 5, 2015

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CATHERINE HENRY, *

* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; * Tetanus-Diphtheria-Acellular-Pertussis * Vaccine (Tdap); Shoulder Injury Related

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA); AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (SPU).

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ry land & Griffee, PC, Memphis, TN, for petitioner. Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On May 28, 2015, Catherine Henry (“petit ioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compens ation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et

seq

. , 2 [the “Vaccine Act”]. Petitioner alleges t hat as a result of receiving a tetanusdiphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vacci ne on June 3, 2014, she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“S IRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 5, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) repo rt in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent states that pet itioner’s “alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA; that a preponderance of the evidenc e establishes her SIRVA was caused-in-

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified mate rial fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 fact by the Tdap vaccination she received on June 3, 2014; and that no other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA were identified.” Id. at 3. Responden t further states that the records show that petitioner suffered the sequela of her injury for more than six months. Id. Thus, respondent states that “petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence presented, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
Louis Cherry and Marsha Gordon v. Gail Wiesner, City of Raleigh, and Raleigh Board of Adjustment

City of Raleigh, a municipal corporation v. Raleigh Board of Adjustment, Louis W. Cherry, III, Marsha G. Gordon, and Gail P. Wiesner

No. 103P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Andrew J. Petesch, Attorney at Law, Andrew H. Erteschik, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Wiesner, Gail.

Dorothy K. Leapley, Deputy City Attorney, Nicolette Fulton, Associate City Attorney, for City of Raleigh.

John M. Silverstein, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Raleigh Board of Adjustment.

Joseph S. Dowdy, Attorney at Law, Phillip Absolom Harris, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Cherry, Louis, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of March 20 16 by Respondent (Gail Wiesner) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Form S-8 and the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Form S-8 (Registration
No. 333-07295) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, 1996 Director's Stock Option Plan and Employees and Consultants Stock Option Agreement/Plan, the Form S-8
(Registration No. 333-58303) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, and 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Form S-8 (Registration
No. 333-87369) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-44736) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan,
the Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 on Form S-3 to Form SB-2 (Form SB-2 No. 333-476-LA) for
the registration of 4,477,402 shares of common stock and 328,500 warrants to purchase common stock, the Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-88051) for the registration
of 2,014,036 shares of common stock, the Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-52326) for the registration of 697,533 shares of common stock, and the
Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-95177) for the registration of 136,130 shares of common stock and related prospectuses, of our report dated February 19,
2002, except for Note 6, paragraph 2, as to which the date is March 4, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SuperGen, Inc. included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.



Palo
Alto, California
March 28, 2002

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 toRegistration Statement No. 333-42839 on Form S-3 andRegistration Statement Nos. 333-39003, 333-39005, 333-39007,333-79557, 333-67610 and 333-91956 on Form S-8 ofour reports dated March 11, 2005, relating to the financial statements andfinancial statement schedule of UNOVA, Inc. and management’s report of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of UNOVA, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2004.
| Seattle,  Washington |
|----------------------|
| March 11, 2005  |

 

----
# C_2008183EN.01003002.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/30

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2008 — Rath v OHIM — Sanorell Pharma (Immunocel)

(Case T-368/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 183/57)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2387/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject:   Creation of workplace health promotion infrastructures

The Union's public health competences include the promotion of workplace safety. In 2002, the Commission funded a programme for the creation of workplace health promotion infrastructures, contributing the sum of EUR 985 000 to the Federal Association of Company Health Insurance Funds (Essen). The objectives of this programme include the development of support infrastructures at national level in implementation of the Union's workplace health promotion policy. Can the Commission state what structures have been created by each of the Member States involved in the programme? Has the Commission arranged for monitoring of the programme's results?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to a grant agreement within the Community Action Programme on Health Promotion, Information, Education and Training, which is currently carried out in all Member States, the three European Economic Area (EEA) countries and five candidate countries by the European Network for Workplace Health Promotion (ENWHP). The objectives of this grant agreement include the development of supportive infrastructures at national level for the dissemination and implementation of effective strategies in workplace health promotion and policies.

These supportive infrastructures, which are also, named as national forum for workplace health promotion form a platform at national level for exchange of knowledge and experiences as well as for joint actions of all stakeholders in workplace health improvement. Common goals and rules for closely working together shall be developed, in accordance with national priorities and practices. In most countries participating in this project the national forum will have an informal status and will decide through consensus building on a voluntary basis. The national forum shall involve institutional stakeholders such as governmental, regional and other competent authorities, Social Partners and representatives of social security institutions and non-institutional stakeholders such as enterprises, professional and intermediate associations and granting institutions.

The members of the European Network for Workplace Health Promotion have started to initiate the development of an informal national forum for workplace health promotion on their territory. These initiatives will use already established networks for health and safety at workplace and workplace health improvements at European and national level as far as possible or will have to create new structures in form of networks or platforms. The final results of this project, in particular, the status and working procedures of the supportive infrastructures at national level in relation to workplace health promotion will be presented at the 4th European Conference of the European Network for Workplace Health Promotion on 14-15 June 2004 in Dublin.

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3772 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase to $500 the 

residential energy property expenditures limitation with respect to heat 

pumps for purposes of the credit for nonbusiness energy property. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. WELCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

to $500 the residential energy property expenditures limitation with respect to heat pumps for purposes of the 

credit for nonbusiness energy property. 

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 ‘‘Home Heating and 

5 Cooling Efficiently Act’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3772 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMITATION WITH RESPECT TO FUEL 

2 PUMPS FOR NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROP3 ERTY CREDIT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (C) of section 

5 25C(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend6 ed by inserting ‘‘(other than an electric heat pump de7 scribed in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (d)(3))’’ 

8 before the period at the end. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS