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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

d0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

140211 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140211 

 COA: 294284 

Oakland CC: 1979-039825-FY 

THOMAS ANZURES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 9, 2009 

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).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2982]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5150-6]


Peak Oil Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed de Minimis Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed de minimis settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under Section 122(g)(4) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) has offered approximately 700 de minimis 
parties at the Peak Oil Superfund Site (Site) an opportunity to enter 
into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to settle claims for past 
and future response costs at the Site. EPA will consider public 
comments on the proposed settlement for thirty days. EPA may withdraw 
from or modify the proposed settlement should such comments disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate the proposed settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Copies of the proposed 
settlement and a list of proposed settling de minimis parties are 
available from: Mr. Greg Armstrong, Enforcement Project Manager, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Waste Programs Branch, 
Waste Management Division, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 
30365, (404) 347-5059 ext. 6188.
    Written comment may be submitted to the person above within 30 days 
of the date of publication.

    Dated: January 25, 1995.
H. Kirk Lucius,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division.
[FR Doc. 95-2982 Filed 2-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7105 

IN RE: DAVID M. KISSI,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CR-05-254)

Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 30, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Kissi, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David M. Kissi petitions for a writ of mandamus. He

seeks an order directing a change of venue in the underlying

criminal proceeding and an order granting his release from

detention. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner

has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav.

& Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus

is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.

394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re

United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

With these criteria in mind, we conclude Kissi is not

entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny his petition for

writ of mandamus, amended petitions, and supplements. We also deny

Kissi’s motions to expedite, for a suppression hearing, and for

appointment of counsel. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5424 

To create the Made-in-America Bank. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To create the Made-in-America Bank. 

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 ‘‘Made-in-America Bank 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK AS 

7 THE MADE-IN-AMERICA BANK. 

8 (a) REDESIGNATION.—Paragraph (1) of subsection 

9 (a) of section 2 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 

10 (12 U.S.C. 635(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘Export11 Import Bank’’ and inserting ‘‘Made-in-America Bank’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5424 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, map, 

2 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the Federal agency renamed in subsection (a) 

4 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Made-in-America 

5 Bank’’. 

6 SEC. 3. FINANCING MADE AVAILABLE TO AMERICAN ENTI7 TIES PURCHASING AMERICAN MADE GOODS. 

8 All guarantees, loans, insurance, and any other bene9 fits historically provided by the Export-Import Bank may 

10 only be made to a domestic entity that is not majority11 owned by any foreign person or entity and only for the 

12 purpose of acquiring goods or services made in America. 

13 SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY. 

14 Section 7 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 

15 (12 U.S.C. 635f) is amended by striking ‘‘2014’’ and in16 serting ‘‘2016’’. 

17 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

18 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 

19 on October 1, 2014, or the date of enactment of this Act, 

20 whichever is later. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

*Time and Date:*                         11 a.m.-5:30 p.m., June 21, 2010 (Closed).                    

*Place:*                         Teleconference.                    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                    

*Matters To Be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “SIP 10-033, Innovative Approaches to Preventing Teen Pregnancy among Underserved Populations & SIP 10-035, Impact of High School Start Times on the Health and Academic Performance of High School Students.”                    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         Michelle Mathieson, Public Health Analyst, National Center for Chronic Disease and Health Promotion, Office of the Director, Extramural Research Program Office, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop K-92, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-3068, E-mail:                         *mth8@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: May 28, 2010.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2010-13518 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), eachof the undersigned does hereby certify that:

The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the“Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information containedin the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                      |                                 |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                 | /s/ David R. Carlucci                |
| Date: August 4, 2006 | David R. Carlucci                    |
|                 | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|                 |                                 |

 

 
|                      |                                              |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                 | /s/ Nancy E. Cooper                               |
| Date: August 4, 2006 | Nancy E. Cooper                                   |
|                 | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                 |                                              |

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as aseparate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to IMS Health Incorporated and will beretained by IMS Health Incorporated and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
#### ANNIE CARROLL GARRISS, Administratrix of JOHNNIE CARROLL, and ANNIE CARROLL GARRISS, Dependent Mother of JOHNNIE CARROLL, Deceased, v. HINES BROTHERS LUMBER COMPANY and PHILLIP LANIER.

(Filed 29 June, 1932.)

1. Master and Servant E i — Findings of fact by Industrial Commission upon conflicting evidence are conclusive.

Tlie findings of fact by the Industrial Commission in a bearing before it are conclusive on appeal when supported by any competent evidence.

2. Appeal and Error K c — New trial will not be granted in the Supreme Court for newly discovered evidence that is merely corroborative.

A petition for a new trial for newly discovered evidence will not be granted where the evidence is merely corroborative of plaintiff’s witnesses and contradictory of defendant’s testimony.'

Civil actiobt, before *Sinclair, J.,*at December Term, 1931, of GbeeNE.

Tbe plaintiff applied to tbe Industrial Commission for an award for tbe death.of her son, who was killed on 22 August, 1929, while riding on a truck from a logging camp in Greene County to tbe city of Kinston. At tbe bearing tbe Commission found “as a fact that tbe death of deceased, Johnnie Carroll, was not tbe result of an accident which arose out of and in tbe course of bis employment.” Thereupon compensation was denied. An appeal was taken by tbe plaintiff to tbe full Commission and tbe following order entered: “Upon tbe evidence tbe full Commission affirms tbe findings of fact and' award of Chairman Allen and adopts them as tbe finding of fact and award. of the full Commission.”

Tbe plaintiff appealed to tbe Superior Court, and it was decreed “that tbe judgment, findings and conclusion of tbe North Carolina Industrial Commission be, and tbe same are hereby in all respects confirmed.”

From tbe judgment so entered tbe plaintiff appealed.

*P. R. Hines for plaintiff.*

*Dawson & J ones for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe evidence was conflicting. The law has established the Industrial Commission as a tribunal to find the facts in compensation cases. This Court has consistently held in accordance with the statute that, if there is any competent evidence to support the findings of fact made by the Commission, such findings are binding"'upon the appellate courts. Consequently the judgment is affirmed.

*149In May, 1932, the plaintiff filed a petition for a new trial for newly discovered evidence. An examination of the proposed evidence, however, discloses that it corroborates certain witnesses for the plaintiff and contradicts certain other testimony. Hence the petition for a new trial does not meet the tests prescribed by law in such cases. *Pridgen v. R. R., ante,*62.

Petition for new trial, denied.

Judgment of the Superior Court, affirmed.
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b). 

1. Case No. SD33193, SD33194 and SD33195 (Consolidated) 

 Re: IN THE INTEREST OF: 

 N.A.M., L.A.M., and H.L.M.,
#### R. A. HAMILTON v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 29 June, 1932.)

(For digest see *Hamilton v. R. R., ante,*136.)

Appeal by National Surety Company from *Small, J.,*at December Term, 1931, of-Wake.

Reversed.

*Glyde A. Douglass and B. N. Simms for plaintiff.*

*S. Brown Shepherd for National Surety Company.*

Clarkson, J.

For the reasons given in the opinion in *Hamilton v. R. R., ante,*136, the judgment of the court below is

Reversed.
.,T-rORNE:Y GENERAI. 

July 20, 1971 

Hon. J. W. Edgar Opinion No. M-908 

Commissioner of Education 

Texas Education Agency Re: Construction of House Bill 

201 East Eleventh Street 803, House Bill 1062 and 

Austin, Texas 78701 Senate Bill 1008, Acts 62nd 

Leg., R.S. 1971, relating 

to salaries of assistant 

Dear Dr. Edgar: count,y superintendents. 

Your request for an opinion asks the following question: 

"Does House Bill 1062, Acts 62nd Legislature, 

R.S. 1971, amending Section 17.52(a) of the Texas 

Education Code, appl 

h 

uniformly to all counties 

in the matter of sue not-to-exceed (1) annual 

salary of first assistant county superintendents 

and (2) aggregate annual salaries of all assistant to such county superintendents?" 

House Bill 803, Acts 62nd Leg., R.S. 1971, fixes the 

salaries of assistant county school superintendents in counties 

having a population according to the last preceding federal 

census of more than 260,000 but less than 325,000 inhabitants. 

House Bill 802 passed the Legislature on May 6, 1971. 

Senate Bill 1008, Acts 62nd Leg., R.S. 1971, also fixes 

the compensation of assistant county school superintendents. 

Senate Bill 1008 passed the Legislature May 20, 1971. 

House Bill 1062, Acts 62nd Leg., R.S. 1971, fixes the 

salaries of all assistant county school superintendents in the 

State. House Bill 1062 passed the Legislature May 26, 1971. 

Therefore House Bill 1062 is the latest expression of 

the Legislature relating to the compensation of assistant county 

superintendents and will control over the provisions of House 

Bill 803 and Senate Bill 1008. Attorney General's Opinion 

M-497 (1969); Attorney General's Opinion V-990 (1950) aff'd by 

Ex parte De Jesus de la 0, 227 S.W.Zd 212 (Tex.Crim. 1950); 

Townsend v. Terrell, 118 Tex. 463, 16 S.W.Zd 1063 (1929); Wright V. 

-4421- 
Dr. J. W. Edgar, page 2 (M-908) 

Broeter, 145 Tex. 142, 196 S.W.2d 82 (1946); Stevens v. State, 

159. 503 (Tex.Crim. 1913); Parshall v. State,,138 S.W. 759 

(Tex.Crim. 1911). 

You are accordingly advised that the provisions of 

House Bill 1062 amending Section 17.52(a) of the Texas Education 

Code apply uniformly to all counties and prescribe the maximum 

compensation that may be paid assistant county superintendents. 

SUMMARY 

House Bill 1062 amending Section 17.52(a) 

of the Texas Education Code applies uniformly. 

to all counties and prescribes the maximum compensation that may be paid assistant county school 

superintendents, and controls over the provisions 

of House Bill 803 and Senate Bill 1008, Acts 

62nd Leg., R.S. 1971. (7 

Very truly yoprs, 

Prepared by John Reeves 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman 

James McCoy 

Linward Shivers 

Brandon Bickett 

A. J. Gallerano 

MEADE F. GRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

-4422-
#### ELLA B. BLALOCK v. CAROLINA CENTRAL GAS COMPANY, INC.

(Filed 29 September, 1954.)

Appeal by defendant from *Moore, J., at*January Term 1954, of HENDERSON.

Civil action to recover damage for personal injury sustained by plaintiff when sbe fell into a register bole in ballway of one H. Gr. Neighbors, in Hendersonville, N. C.,.from which, as alleged, employees and agents of defendant in making repairs to gas beating appliances, bad negligently removed the metal register.

Plaintiff filed complaint, and defendant filed answer, and further answers thereto, and to the first and second further answers plaintiff replied.

And at January Civil Term 1954, by permission of the court plaintiff amended her complaint to allege that on account of the injuries of which she complains she has incurred, and will incur expenses for medical attention, including medicine, doctor’s bill and hospitalization, for which she prays recovery.

Thereupon defendant moves that the matters so alleged by way of amendment be stricken out. The motion was overruled, and defendant excepted and appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Arthur J. Redden, J. E. Shipman, and Monro.e M. Redden for plaintiff appellee.*

*L. B. Prince for defendant appellant.*

Pee Curiam.

While the record on this appeal reveals that defendant assigns as error the action of the court in overruling (1) its motion for a continuance, and (2) its motion to strike, the sole question brought forward in brief of defendant relates to the latter motion.

This assignment of error is without merit, and requires no express consideration.

Affirmed.
#### W. J. JONES and Wife KATIE JONES, CORA ABERNETHY and Husband M. L. ABERNETHY, et al. v. JOHN JONES and Wife CORA JONES, RICHARD JONES, et al.

(Filed 18 October, 1950.)

1. Appeal and Error § 10b—

Where the trial court fixes case on appeal at the time judgment is entered, service of case on appeal is not required.

2. Appeal and Error § 16—

Where judgment is entered in the trial court' prior to the beginning of the Spring Term of the Supreme Court, the appeal must be brought to the Spring Term and docketed fourteen days before the call of the docket of the district to which the ease belongs. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 5.

3. Same: Appeal and Error § 31c—

The rule regulating the time appeals must be docketed in the Supreme Court is mandatory and cannot be abrogated by consent or otherwise, and failure to docket as required by the rule requires dismissal of the appeal.

Appeal by defendants from *Crisp, Special Judge,*January Term, 1950, Catawba.

*519Petition for partition in wbicb tbe defendants plead sole seizin. Tbe court below concluded tbat tbe defendants’ plea of sole seizin was not well founded and signed judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appealed.

*Bussell W. Whitener for plaintiff appellees.*

*Fred D. Caldwell and Childs & Childs for J ohn J ones and wife, Cora Jones, appellants.*

BabNhill, J.

This cause was beard at the January Term, 1950, Catawba Superior Court, and the judge entered judgment on 27 January 1950. At the same time, the cause having been disposed of on the record, the court fixed the case on appeal and also allowed time in which to serve the same. the appeal reached the office of the Clerk of this Court 30 March 1950, after the Spring Term call of cases from the Sixteenth District. the Clerk of this Court was authorized or directed to docket the appeal for the Fall Term 1950. Appellants’ brief was filed 29 September 1950. On this showing, the appeal must be dismissed.

The judge fixed the case on appeal at the time judgment was entered. Service thereof was not required. *Privette v. Allen,*227 N.C. 164, 41 S.E. 2d 364.

It was the duty of appellants to docket their appeal at the Spring Term 1950 of this Court, fourteen days before the call of the docket of the Sixteenth District to which this case belongs. Rule 5, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 546.

This rule is mandatory and cannot be abrogated by consent or otherwise. *Pruitt v. Wood,*199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126. Failure to docket as thus required results in the loss of the right of appeal and necessitates dismissal. *Pruitt v. Wood, supra; S. v. Watson,*208 N.C. 70; 179 S.E. 455; *S. v. Presnell,*226 N.C. 160, 36 S.E. 2d 927.

This disposition of the appeal is not due to arbitrariness on our part but is in the enforcement of a rule essential to the prompt administration of justice. *Pruitt v. Wood, supra.*We may note, however, that, on this record, the dismissal of the appeal works no injury to any of the parties. Whatever the procedure which might be adopted in the trial of this cause in the court below, the final result would be the same.

Appeal dismissed.