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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136418 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136418 

 COA: 280756 

Wexford CC: 03-007071-FC 

CLIFTON PAUL MOFFAT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d0915 

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
STATE v. Charles Edwards McCRAE.

No. 86P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Lauren Tally Earnhardt, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Charles Edwards McCrae, for McCrae, Charles Edwards.

Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of April 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
Sandra D. SNIPES and William J. Snipes v. BRITTHAVEN, INC., Principle Long Term Care, Inc., Spruce LTC Group, LLC d/b/a Richmond Pines Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center and Fred McQueen, Jr., M.D.

No. 332P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Scott Lewis, Attorney at Law, Ms. Pamela Renee Lawrence, Wilmington, For Britthaven, Inc., et al.

Mr. Gary K. Shipman, Mr. Kyle J. Nutt, Mr. William G. Wright, Attorneys at Law, For Snipes, Sandra D. et al.

Mr. Joseph Williford, Attorney at Law, For McQueen, Fred (Jr.)(M.D.).

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of September 2016 by Defendants (Britthaven, Inc. Principle Long Term Care, Inc., and Spruce LTC Group, LLC d/b/a Richmond Pines Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center and Fred McQueen, Jr., M.D.) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants (Britthaven, Inc., et al.) on the 6th of September 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants (Britthaven, Inc., et al.) on the 6th of September 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 8th of December 2016."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

LAMONT ELLISON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 482 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 31st day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter.
STATE of North Carolina v. Sammy Lewis HENSLEY

No. COA16-695

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 21, 2017

VACATED AND REMANDED.
**Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2010 – Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v OHIM – Applus Servicios
Tecnológicos (A+)**

**(Case T-321/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark A+ – Earlier Community word mark AirPlus International – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of similarity between the signs – Duty to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 73, 74 and 79 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation
(EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 43)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2007 (Case R 310/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH and Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative trade mark ‘A+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41 and 42 – application No 2933356 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Community word mark Airplus International for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 42 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

1.      Dismisses the action;

2.      Orders Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

3.      Orders Applus Servicios Tecnológicoas, SL to bear its own costs.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3735 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the new markets 

tax credit and provide designated allocations for areas impacted by a 

decline in manufacturing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. CARNEY (for himself and Mr. STIVERS) 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 extend 

the new markets tax credit and provide designated allocations for areas impacted by a decline in manufacturing. 

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 ‘‘Manufacturing Com5 munities Investment Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3735 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT WITH 

2 DESIGNATED ALLOCATIONS FOR AREAS IM3 PACTED BY DECLINE IN MANUFACTURING. 

4 (a) EXTENSION OF CREDIT.—Section 45D(f)(1) of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

6 the period at the end of subparagraph (G) and inserting 

7 ‘‘, and’’ and by adding at the end the following new sub8 paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(H) $5,000,000,000 for 2014, 2015, and 

10 2016.’’. 

11 (b) ALLOCATIONS DESIGNATED FOR AREAS IM12 PACTED BY DECLINE IN MANUFACTURING.—Section 

13 45D(f) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the 

14 following new paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(4) ALLOCATIONS FOR AREAS IMPACTED BY

16 DECLINE IN MANUFACTURING.—The new markets 

17 tax credit limitation otherwise determined under 

18 paragraph (1) for calendar years 2014, 2015, and 

19 2016 shall each be increased by $1,000,000,000. A 

20 qualified community development entity shall be eli21 gible for an allocation under paragraph (2) of the in22 crease described in the preceding sentence only if a 

23 significant mission of such entity is providing invest24 ments and services to persons in the trade or busi25 ness of manufacturing products in communities 

26 which have suffered major manufacturing job losses 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3735 IH

1 or a major manufacturing job loss event, as des2 ignated by the Secretary. Paragraph (3) shall be ap3 plied separately with respect to the increase provided 

4 under this paragraph.’’. 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall apply to calendar years beginning after 

7 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
INN OF THE MOUNTAIN GODS RESORT AND CASINO
      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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 quarterly report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Pamela GallegosBy:
    
    Pamela GallegosTitle:
    
    Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
 36
IB 

Union Calendar No. 304 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4032 

[Report No. 113–413, Part I] 

To exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers 

by the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma 

Utility Authority, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

Mr. HALL (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 

APRIL 10, 2014 

Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources 

APRIL 10, 2014 

The Committee on the Judiciary discharged; committed to the Committee of 

the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4032 RH

A BILL 

To exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain 

water transfers by the North Texas Municipal Water 

District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority, and 

for other purposes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 4032 RH

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 ‘‘North Texas Invasive 

5 Species Barrier Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LACEY ACT AMENDMENT OF 

7 1981. 

8 The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 

9 3371 et seq.) and section 42 of title 18, United States 

10 Code, shall not apply with respect to any water transfer 

11 by the North Texas Municipal Water District and the 

12 Greater Texoma Utility Authority using only closed con13 veyance systems from the Lake Texoma raw water intake 

14 structure to treatment facilities at which all genera and 

15 species prohibited in accordance with such Act or such sec16 tion, respectively, are extirpated and removed from the 

17 water transferred. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Union Calendar No. 304 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4032 

[Report No. 113–413, Part I] 

A BILL 

To exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 

Utility Authority, and for other purposes. nicipal Water District and the Greater Texoma certain water transfers by the North Texas MuAPRIL 10, 2014 

Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources 

APRIL 10, 2014 

The Committee on the Judiciary discharged; committed 

the Union and ordered to be printed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008183EN.01000603.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/6

---

Order of the Court of 14 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Tiercé Ladbroke SA (C-231/07) and Derby SA (C-232/07) v Belgian State

(Joined Cases C-231/07 and C-232/07) (1)

1

(Rules of Procedure - First subparagraph of Article 104(3) - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13(B)(d)(3) - Exemptions - Concepts of ‘deposit accounts’ and of ‘payments’ - Refusal of exemption)

(2008/C 183/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)

Parties

Applicants: Tiercé Ladbroke SA and Derby SA

Applicants:

Defendant: Belgian State

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 13(B)(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption in relation to transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts and payments — Bets, lotteries and other games of chance or forms of gambling — Supply of services by buralistes responsible for collecting the bets on behalf of a principal and, where appropriate, for paying out winnings to bettors — Whether eligible for the exemption provided for in Article 13(B)(d)(3)

Operative part of the order

The terms ‘transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts and payments’ used in Article 13(B)(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not refer to the supply of services by an agent acting on behalf of a client which carries out the activity of accepting bets on horse races and other sporting events, consisting of acceptance by the agent of bets on behalf of the client, registration thereof, confirmation to the client, by presentation of the betting slip, that a bet was made, collection of funds, payment of winnings, sole assumption of liability as regards the client for management of the funds collected and for thefts and/or losses of money and receipt of remuneration in the form of commission from the client as remuneration for that activity.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
Fannie Mae v. Price

257P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Mr. William Gerald Price, Pro Se.

Ms. Natasha M. Barone, Attorney at Law, For Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of September 2016 by Respondent for Sanctions:

"Motion Dismissed without prejudice by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 08-0696

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Petitioner,

v.

Larry M. Gentilello, M.D., Respondent

On Petition for Review

**ORDERED:**

1.Petitioner’s emergency motion to reinstate statutory stay and vacate court of appeals’ order lifting stay, filed October 1, 2008, is granted in part.  All trial court proceedings in Cause No. 07-05675, styled *Larry M. Gentilello, M.D. v. The University of Texas Southwestern Health Systems, a/k/a UT Southwestern Health Systems and The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas*, in the 162nd District Court of Dallas County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The petition for review remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this October 02, 2008.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
|  | (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. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  February      22, 2011 |   | /s/ David A. Bochnowski                                |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     |   | David      A. Bochnowski                               |
|                                     |   | Chairman      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                     |   |                                                   |
|                                     |   | /s/ Robert T. Lowry                                    |
|                                     |   | Robert      T. Lowry                                   |
|                                     |   | Senior      Vice President, Chief Financial            |
|                                     |   | Officer      and Treasurer                             |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-1916 

SANDRA LYNN VON LOETZEN BENNIE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS, ESIS/GMM Central Claims,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(8:06-cv-01182-DKC)

Submitted: September 24, 2008 Decided: October 10, 2008

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandra Lynn von Loetzen Bennie, Appellant Pro Se. Edward J.

Longosz, II, Laura Stover, ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT,

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sandra Lynn von Loetzen Bennie appeals the district

court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and

dismissing this products liability action. We have reviewed the

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

the reasons stated by the district court. von Loetzen Bennie v.

General Motors Corp., No. 8:06-cv-01182-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 9, 2007).

We 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
STATE v. Ronnie Paul GODBEY

443PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 24, 2017.

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Godbey, Ronnie Paul.

Anita LeVeaux, Special Deputy Attorney General, Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, Southport.

Amy Bircher, Assistant Attorney General.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 23rd of March 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of March 2017."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 26th day of April 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Exhibit 10.62
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE
ADVOCAT INC.
1994 INCENTIVE AND NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN
FOR KEY PERSONNEL
   (e) Payment and Withholding .
 (i) Payment for all shares purchased pursuant to exercise of an Option will be
made in cash, by delivery of unrestricted shares of Common Stock at Fair Market
Value on the date of exercise, or a combination thereof. The payment will be made
at the time the Option or any part thereof is exercised, and no shares will be
issued until full payment therefor has been made. Payment in currency or by check,
bank draft, cashiers check or postal money order will be considered payment in
cash.
 (ii) Notwithstanding the subparagraph 7(e)(i) , the Committee may in its
discretion permit the Option price to be paid by the net exercise of such Option
In such case, the Company will not require a cash payment of the Option price, but
will reduce the number of shares of Common Stock issued upon the exercise of such
Option by the largest number of whole shares of Common Stock that have a Fair Market
Value which does not exceed the aggregate Option price with respect to the portion
of such Option that is being exercised. With respect to any remaining balance of
the aggregate Option price, the Company shall accept a cash payment. Upon the net
exercise of an Option (A) shares used to pay the Option price, (B) shares actually
delivered to the Option holder as a result of such exercise, and (C) shares withheld
for purposes of tax withholding, will no longer be outstanding under such Option
(and will therefore no longer be exercisable by the holder).
 (iii) In addition to the Option price, the Corporation will have the right, if
applicable, to require the holder of an Option to remit to the Corporation an amount
sufficient to satisfy any federal, state or local withholding tax liability prior to
the delivery of any certificate or certificates for shares issuable upon exercise of
the Option.
 1
# C_2009069EN.01003502.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/35

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 2009 — Iride and Iride Energia v Commission

(Case T-25/07) (1)

1

(State aid - Energy sector - Compensation for stranded costs - Decision declaring aid compatible with the common market - Obligation for the recipient undertaking first to repay earlier aid declared unlawful - State resources - Advantage - Obligation to state reasons)

(2009/C 69/82)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Iride SpA (Turin, Italy); and Iride Energia SpA (Turin) (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola and C. Bazoli, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and G. Conte, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/941/EC of 8 November 2006 on State aid C 11/06 (ex N 127/05) which Italy is planning to implement for AEM Torino (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 62), in the form of grants to reimburse the stranded costs in the energy sector, in so far as (i) it contains a finding of State aid and (ii) it makes compatibility of that aid with the common market conditional upon reimbursement by AEM Torino of earlier unlawful aid granted under the scheme for ‘municipalised’ undertakings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

1

---