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

Lansing, Michigan 

December 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131517 & (5)(7) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

IN RE CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM 

THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF 

APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

_________________________________________/ 

GLENN MILLER, ESTATE OF CAROLYN 

MILLER, SHAWN DEAN, JOHN ROLAND, 

and ALMA ROLAND,

Plaintiffs, 

v SC: 131517 

 CA-14: 14-05-00026-CV 

239th DC: 15077*JG01 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motions to admit counsel pro hac vice and to file a 

surreply brief are GRANTED. The question certified by the Texas Court of Appeals 

(Fourteenth District) is considered, and the request to answer the question is GRANTED. 

If the parties wish to file further briefs, they must be prepared in conformity with MCR 

7.306 through 7.309. 

The Michigan Manufacturers Association, the Michigan Trial Lawyers 

Association, the Negligence Law Section of the State Bar, and the Michigan Chamber of 

Commerce are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in 

the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission 

to file briefs amicus curiae. 

CAVANAGH, J., would decline to answer the certified question. 

WEAVER, J., dissents and states as follows: 

I dissent from the order granting the request of the Texas Court of Appeals, 

Fourteenth District, for an answer to the question, because I continue to question this 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

2 

Court's constitutional authority to hear questions certified by other courts.1 Justice 

Young2

 and Justice Levin3 have also questioned this Court's authority to answer certified 

questions. Therefore, I would decline to answer the question in this case. 

1

 See, e.g., In re Certified Questions (Melson v Prime Ins Syndicate, Inc), 472 Mich 1225 

(2005) (Weaver, J., concurring); In re Certified Question (Wayne Co v Philip Morris 

Inc), 622 NW2d 518 (2001) (Weaver, J., dissenting); Proposed Amendment of MCR 

7.305, 462 Mich 1208 (2000) (Weaver, J., dissenting); In re Certified Question (Kenneth 

Henes Special Projects Procurement, Marketing & Consulting Corp v Continental 

Biomass Industries, Inc), 468 Mich 109 (2003) (Weaver, J., concurring). 

2

 See In re Certified Question (Wayne Co v Philip Morris Inc), 622 NW 2d 518 (2001) 

(Young, J., concurring). 

3

 See In re Certified Question (Bankey v Storer Broadcasting Co), 432 Mich 438, 462-

471 (1989) (separate opinion by Levin, J.). 

d1219 

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. 

December 29, 2006 

Clerk
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Sonus Corp.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos.  333-57673 and  333-83151) of Sonus Corp. of our report dated November
13,  2000,  relating  to the  consolidated  balance  sheet  of Sonus  Corp.  and
subsidiaries  as of July 31, 2000,  and the related  consolidated  statements of
operations,  shareholders'  equity  and cash  flows for each of the years in the
two-year  period ended July 31, 2000,  which report appears in the July 31, 2001
annual report on Form 10-K of Sonus Corp.






/s/KPMG LLP

Portland, Oregon
December 3, 2001
<PAGE>


                           INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT



Board of Directors and Stockholders
Heuristic Development Group, Inc.
Manhattan Beach, California



We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Heuristic Development
Group, Inc. (a development stage company) as of December 31, 1998, and the
related statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity (capital
deficiency) and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period then
ended and for the period from July 20, 1994 (inception) through December 31,
1998. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards required that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements enumerated above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of Heuristic Development Group,
Inc. at December 31, 1998 and the results of its operations and cash
flows for each of the years in the two-year period then ended and for the
period from July 20, 1994 (inception) through December 31, 1998 in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

As described in Note A the Company has decided to pursue a strategy of an
investment in, or acquisition of, an existing company.  However, there can be
no assurances that an appropriate investment or acquisition will be
identified.


Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP



New York, New York
February 5, 1999
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5984 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking concerning seat belts on school buses, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 29, 2018 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER (for himself and Mr. FASO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to publish a 

notice of proposed rulemaking concerning seat belts on 

school buses, 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 ‘‘Secure Every Child 

5 Under the Right Equipment Standards Act of 2018’’ or 

6 the ‘‘SECURES Act of 2018’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PROPOSED RULEMAKING. 

8 (a) REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 180 days after 

9 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Trans10 portation shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5984 IH

1 on new Federal standards for school bus seat belt require2 ments on all school buses, regardless of gross vehicle 

3 weight rating. 

4 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In the proposed rulemaking, 

5 the Secretary shall consider— 

6 (1) the safety benefits of a lap/shoulder belt 

7 system (also known as a ‘‘Type 2 seat belt assem8 bly’’); 

9 (2) the conclusion of the National Transpor10 tation Safety Board that ‘‘Lap/shoulder belts pro11 vide the highest level of protection for school bus 

12 passengers’’ and that ‘‘Properly worn lap belts pro13 vide some benefit,’’ while ‘‘Properly worn lap/shoul14 der belts provide greater benefit by reducing injuries 

15 related to upper body flailing’’; 

16 (3) the 2015 announcement by the Adminis17 trator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad18 ministration Mark Rosekind, stating that the agency 

19 believes ‘‘that every child on every school bus should 

20 have a three-point seat belt’’; 

21 (4) any innovative approaches to seat belt de22 tection, seat belt reminder systems, and seat belt 

23 violation alert systems that could be incorporated 

24 into school bus designs; and 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5984 IH

1 (5) existing experience from the States that 

2 have already required school buses to be equipped 

3 with seat belts. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
| NAME                   | COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION | OWNERSHIP AND VOTING PERCENTAGE |
|------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                   |                     |                            |
| KTL Camden, Inc.       | Republic of Liberia      | 100%                            |
| KTL Kensington, Inc.   | Republic of Liberia      | 100%                            |
| KTL Hampstead, Inc.    | Republic of Liberia      | 100%                            |
| KTL Mayfair, Inc.      | Republic of Liberia      | 100%                            |
| KTL Belgravia I, Inc.  | Republic of Liberia      | 100%                            |
| KTL Belgravia II, Inc. | Republic of Liberia      | 100%                            |
| Golden Future Inc.     | Republic of Liberia      | 100%                            |
| Golden Zhejiang Inc.   | Republic of Liberia      | 100%                            |
<PAGE>
 

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of ASI Solutions Incorporated on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-36509, 333-
36511 and 333-36513) of our report dated May 20, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of ASI Solutions Incorporated as of March 31,
1998 and March 31, 1997, and for each of the three years in the period ended
March 31, 1998, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/  Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


New York, New York
June 24, 1998
the benefit of the plea bargain due to an immigration hold and eventual

deportation. We disagree with Hernandez's contention. 2

A district court may grant a post-conviction motion to withdraw a guilty plea in order to "correct manifest injustice." NRS 176.165; 

### Rubio v. State, 124 Nev. 1032, 1039-40, 194 P.3d 1224, 1228-29 (2008). Here, the district court conducted a hearing on the motion, heard arguments from counsel, and determined that Hernandez's guilty plea "was knowingly and voluntarily made and given the totality of the circumstances related to [his] subsequent actions since his sentencing, the Court does not believe manifest injustice results by not permitting him to withdraw his guilty plea." In its written order, the district court also found that Hernandez's manifest-injustice argument was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. 

### See Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-65, 1 P.3d 969, 972-73 (2000) NCIonsideration of the equitable doctrine of laches is necessary in determining whether a defendant has shown 'manifest injustice' that would permit withdrawal of a plea after sentencing."). Most importantly, our review of the record reveals that the provision in the guilty plea agreement allowing Hernandez to withdraw his plea to the felony and enter a plea to a gross misdemeanor upon the successful completion of probation was no longer part of the plea deal after he was arrested three times during the time period between the entry of his guilty plea and the sentencing hearing. Therefore, we conclude thatthe district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hernandez's post2 Hernandez also claims that he "was misinformed about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea in this case." Hernandez offers no argument on appeal in support of this claim; therefore, we need not address it. 

### See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947Aconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea, see Bryant v. State, 102

Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986), and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Bush & Levy, LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3 The fast track statement does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) andNRAP 32(a)(4) because the text in the body of the briefs is not doublespaced. Counsel for Hernandez is cautioned that the failure to comply with the briefing requirements in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947A citgejr,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,298
<INVENTORY>                                     21,410
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,277
<PP&E>                                         129,301
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 294,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,651
<BONDS>                                        195,077
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     32,201
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,757
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   294,970
<SALES>                                        363,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               363,570
<CGS>                                          250,283
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  348,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,417
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,132
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,658)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       507
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,860)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,860)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (126.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (126.74)


</TABLE>
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: OCAS-PER-026 

Effective Date: 10/31/2007 

Revision No. 0 

Pantex TBD Revision – ORAUT-TKBS-0013 Page 1 of 2 

Author: Signature on file Date: 10/30/2007_ Dave Allen, HP Team Leader 

Approval: Signature on file Date: 10/30/2007_ J.W. Neton, Associate Director for Science 

Supersedes: None 

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS 

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE 

10/31/2007

EFFECTIVE 

DATE 

10/31/2007 

REV. NO. 

0 

DESCRIPTION 

New document to determine which 

previously completed claims require 

evaluation for the effect of revising the 

Pantex TBD. 

1.0 Description

The Occupational Medical Dose section of the Pantex Technical Basis Document 

(ORAUT-TKBS-0013-3) was revised on 2/1/2007. The original version was issued on 

8/24/2004. Revisions were made to other sections of the Pantex TBD, but none of these 

revisions affected dose assignments. 

2.0 Issue Evaluation

The revision to the Pantex TBD revised the assigned dose for x-ray examinations for 

some organs during specific time frames. The assigned x-ray dose was increased for the 

thyroid, testes and uterus target organs for chest examinations that occurred between 

1967 and 1971. The assigned x-ray dose was increased for ovaries, urinary bladder, and 

colon target organs for chest examinations that occurred between 1967 and 1971 and 

between 1995 and 2004, as well as lateral lumbar spin examinations occurring before 

1/1/1982. The assigned x-ray dose was increased for skin target organs from AP lumbar 

spine examinations occurring before 1/1/1982. 

The Department of Energy provided records of these examinations when they were 

available. It is therefore, not possible to determine which claims were assigned doses 

from these examinations without reviewing each potentially affected claim. 

3.0 Plan for Resolution or Corrective Action

There were 50 Pantex claims meeting the employment dates and target organ criteria 

above that were completed with a probability of causation below 50% prior to 2/1/2007. 

NIOSH will review the records of each claim to determine if the dose assigned in the 

revised TBD is higher than that assigned in the dose reconstruction. NIOSH will provide 

DOL with the list of 50 claims as well as a determination on each claim as to whether a 
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

Document Number: OCAS-PER-026 Program Evaluation Plan 

Effective Date: 10/31/2007 Revision No. 0 Page 2 of 2 

new Dose Estimate is required. Documentation for each claim not requiring a new dose 

reconstruction will provide the basis for that determination.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5863 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5863

           To limit the transfer of F-35 aircraft to Turkey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2018

Mr. Cicilline (for himself, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Yoho, Mr. 
 Pallone, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Poe of Texas) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
  Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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 limit the transfer of F-35 aircraft to Turkey.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON TRANSFER OF F-35 AIRCRAFT TO TURKEY.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the 
funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense or any 
other Federal department or agency may be used to--
            (1) facilitate the transfer, or authorize the transfer of, 
        an F-35 aircraft to Turkey; or
            (2) transfer intellectual property or technical data 
        necessary for or related to any maintenance or support of such 
        F-35 aircraft.
    (b) Exceptions.--The President may waive the limitation under 
subsection (a) upon written certification to Congress that the 
Government of Turkey is not--
            (1) taking steps to degrade NATO interoperability;
            (2) exposing NATO assets to hostile actors;
            (3) degrading the general security of NATO member states;
            (4) seeking to import or purchase defense articles from a 
        foreign country with respect to which sanctions are imposed by 
        the United States;
            (5) wrongfully or unlawfully detaining one or more 
        nationals of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for 
        permanent residence in the United States; or
            (6) engaging in military action without taking proper steps 
        to ensure that international legal norms are followed to 
        prevent civilian deaths and suffering.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Johnny Lee Childress, Jr. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00416-CR

Trial court case number: 15-DCR-070013A

Trial court: 400th District Court of Fort Bend County

On September 15, 2016, this Court ordered Michael C. Diaz, the court-appointed 

counsel for appellant, Johnny Lee Childress, Jr., to file a motion to withdraw with an 

amended Anders brief and a Kelly notice within 10 days of that order. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 

313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). On September 22, 2016, this Court’s order granted 

the motion for access to the appellate record filed by the pro se appellant and granted him 

a 45-day extension of time to file any response to the Anders brief.

However, also on September 22, 2016, the Clerk of this Court received a letter, 

submitted by the pro se appellant on September 20, 2016, giving notice that appellant

wants to withdraw this appeal in response to the Anders brief, but it was not signed by 

counsel. The Clerk of this Court is directed to file appellant’s letter as a pro se lettermotion to dismiss. Under Rule 42.2(a), any voluntary motion to dismiss in a criminal 

appeal must contain both the signature of appellant’s counsel and the appellant, and it 

must be filed in duplicate with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES appellant’s pro se letter-motion to dismiss this 

appeal without prejudice to refiling by appellant’s counsel because it was neither signed 

by counsel nor filed in duplicate. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). The Court withdraws

both the September 15 and 22, 2016 Orders and will consider a motion to dismiss filed by 

appellant’s counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  Acting individually 

Date: September 27, 2016
Draft Agenda 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Monday - August 18, 2003 

1:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. 

1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. 

2:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. 

2:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. 

3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. 

3:15 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. 

3:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. 

4:30 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. 

4:45 p.m. 

The Westin Cincinnati 

21 East Fifth Street 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

(513) 621-7700 

August 18-19, 2003 

Registration and Welcome 

Review and Approval of 

Draft Minutes, Meetings 14, 

15, and 16 

Program Status Report 

DOL Program Status Report 

Break 

Status of Procurement 

Dose Reconstruction Workgroup 

and Board Discussion to Develop 

Task Order 

Public Comment Period 

Adjourn 

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair 

Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive 

Secretary 

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair 

Mr. David Sundin, NIOSH 

Mr. Peter Turcic, DOL 

Dr. Jim Neton, NIOSH 

Mr. Mark Griffon 

***Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate*** 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday – August 19, 2003 

8:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. 

8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. 

9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. 

10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. 

10:15 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. 

11:15 a.m. – 11:45 a.m. 

11:45 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. 

1:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. 

2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. 

4:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. 

4:30 p.m. 

Draft Agenda 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

The Westin Cincinnati 

21 East Fifth Street 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

(513) 621-7700 

August 18-19, 2003 

Registration and Welcome	 Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair 

 Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary 

Scientific Issues Workgroup Dr. James Melius 

Report 

National Research Council Dr. John E. Till 

Review of the Dose Reconstruction 

 Program of the Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency 

Break 

Status of Technical Basis Dr. Jim Neton, 

Document/Site Profile Development 

ORAU Contract Support Status Dr. Richard Toohey 

Lunch 

Administrative Housekeeping Ms. Cori Homer, NIOSH 

 and Board Work Schedule Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair 

 Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary 

Board Discussion/Working Session 

 Development of Task Order 

Public Comment Period 

Adjourn 

***Agenda Items are subject to change as priorities dictate***