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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 6, 2013

s1030

Order 

Clerk

November 6, 2013

147718

In re TIMOTHY T. FRYHOFF

_________________________________________

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Petitioner. SC: 147718

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the petition for injunction pursuant to MCR 9.108(E)(4) is 

considered, and it is DENIED. In lieu of granting the relief requested, we invite the 

Attorney Grievance Commission to file with the Court its proposal for amending the 

Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct so as to clarify the status of attorney fee 

provisions such as that utilized by the attorney who is the subject of the petition for 

injunction. The issues are whether the use of a “results obtained” or “value added” 

provision in the calculation of attorney fees in a divorce case makes the fee “contingent” 

and thus impermissible under MRPC 1.5(d), and if so, whether the rules should be 

amended to permit such fee provisions under certain conditions. 

The State Bar Family Law Council and Standing Committee on Professional 

Ethics are also invited to file proposed rule amendments addressing the issue presented.
DM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0323

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DUSTIN HAYES KNOX,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including October 20, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 11 2020

09/11/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0323
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5763]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
43 CFR Public Land Order 7123

[AK-932-1430-01; AA-62904]


Revocation of Geological Survey Order dated April 23, 1948, as 
Modified; Alaska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

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

SUMMARY: This order revokes in its entirety a Geological Survey order 
as it affects approximately 5,000 acres of land withdrawn for power 
purposes at Taiya River. The land, which includes public land and land 
which has been conveyed out of Federal ownership, is no longer needed 
for the purpose for which it was withdrawn. The public land lies within 
the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park; the remainder has been 
conveyed to the State of Alaska.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue A. Wolf, BLM Alaska State Office, 
222 W. 7th Avenue, No. 13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599, 907-271-5477.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows:
    1. The Geological Survey Order dated April 23, 1948, as modified, 
which established Powersite Classification No. 396, is hereby revoked 
as it affects the following described land:

Copper River Meridian

Land located within T. 25 S., R. 60 E., T. 26 S., R. 59 E., and T. 
26 S., R. 60 E., and more particularly described as:

    Land located in approximate latitude 59 deg.40' N., and 
longitude 135 deg.16' W., being every smallest legal subdivision, 
any portion of which, when surveyed will be within \1/2\ mile of 
Taiya River from the mouth of Nourse River to the International 
Boundary. The area described contains approximately 5,000 acres.

    2. The public land described above will remain part of the Klondike 
Gold Rush National Historical Park as established by Public Law 94-323, 
16 U.S.C. 410(bb)(1988). The remaining land described above has been 
conveyed out of Federal ownership subject to Section 24 of the Federal 
Power Act of June 10, 1920, 16 U.S.C. 818 (1988).

    Dated: February 24, 1995.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 95-5763 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5265]



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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Information Collection Under OMB Review: Application for 
Benefits, VA Form 21-530

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Veterans Affairs has submitted to OMB the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This 
document lists the following information: (1) The title of the 
information collection, and the Department form number(s), if 
applicab;e; (2) a description of the need and its use; (3) who will be 
required or asked to respond; (4) an estimate of the total annual 
reporting hours, and recordkeeping burden, if applicable (5) the 
estimated average burden hours per respondent; (6) the frequency of 
response; and (7) an estimated number of respondents.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed information collection and supporting 
documents may be obtained from Trish Fineran, Veterans Benefits 
Administration (20M30), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-6886.

    Comments and questions about the items on the list should be 
directed to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Joseph Lackey, NEOB, Room 3002, 
Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316. Do not send requests for benefits 
to this address.

DATES: Comments on the information collection should be directed to the 
OMB Desk Officer on or before April 3, 1995.

    Dated: February 21, 1995.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Ronald C. Taylor,
Management Analyst.

Reinstatement

    1. Application for Benefits, VA Form 21-530.
    2. The form is used to file a claim for burial benefits including 
transportation expenses. The information is used to determine basic 
eligibility and whether the person who paid the veteran's burial 
expenses should be paid, or if expenses are unpaid, whether the 
creditor is to be paid.
    3. Individuals or households--Business or other for-profit.
    4. 100,000 hours.
    5. 20 minutes.
    6. On occasion.
    7. 300,000 respondents.

[FR Doc. 95-5265 Filed 3-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
#### M. M. FORTENBERRY v. HICKORY FLOUR AND FEED COMPANY, Inc.

(Filed 20 May, 1931.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *MacRae, Special Judge,*at February Special Term, 1931, of Catawba.

Civil action by plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury caused by falling about nine feet down an elevator shaft.

According to plaintiff’s testimony, the elevator which was used in moving hay. and feed from one floor to another, was equipped with *810gates and bars, but these had been discarded by the employees. Plaintiff had used the elevator daily for five years, and was permitted to exercise his own judgment in doing his work. He was engaged in loading a truck with hay from the second floor of the building when he fell and was injured. He stepped over three or four bales of hay into the open shaft, without looking, as he mistakenly thought the elevator was there.

After being out three weeks, plaintiff returned to his job and continued working for the defendant for eleven months thereafter when he was dismissed and this suit was instituted.

From a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, he appeals, assigning error.

*D. L. Bussell and D. L. Bussell, Jr., for plaintiff.*

*M. H. Yount for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that no error was committed by the trial court in nonsuiting the case. *Scott v. Tel. Co.,*198 N. C., 795, 153 S. E. 413.

Affirmed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1829

GHL International, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5724]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM95-4-34-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Co., Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

March 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 1, 1995, Florida Gas Transmission Company 
(FGT), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, effective April 1, 1995, the following tariff 
sheets:

2nd Revised Eighth Revised Sheet No. 8A
Second Revised Sheet No. 8A.01
1st Revised Original Sheet No. 8A.02
1st Revised Seventh Revised Sheet No. 8B
1st Revised Original Sheet No. 8B.01

    FGT states that the instant filing is submitted in conformance with 
the requirements of Section 27 of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised 
Volume No. 1, which provides that FGT will file a Fuel Reimbursement 
Charge Adjustment to be effective each April 1 and October 1, as 
applicable.
    Section 27A of FGT's tariff provides for the submission of 
workpapers supporting any revisions to the Fuel Reimbursement Charge 
Percentage at least thirty days prior to the proposed effective date of 
the adjustment. Further, Section 27C states that the Current Fuel 
Reimbursement Charge Percentage will be the quotient resulting from 
fuel used and lost and unaccounted for gas divided by volumes delivered 
during the six-month period commencing one year prior to the effective 
date of the Fuel Reimbursement Charge Adjustment.
    The ratio of fuel usage and unaccounted for volumes to deliveries 
for the period April 1, 1994 through September 30, 1994, determined in 
accordance with Section 27 and reflected on the attached workpaper is 
2.89%.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 
20426 in accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should 
be filed on or before March 10, 1995. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5724 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-03-1999
<CASH>                                       1,183,983
<SECURITIES>                                29,766,868
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         400,337
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,037,659
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     21,524,243
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,472,035
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,037,659
<SALES>                                      3,449,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,449,109
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,945,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                291,962
<INCOME-TAX>                                   211,420
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            291,962
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   291,962
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of bebe stores, inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended October 2, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Parks, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on myknowledge:

 

(1)   The Quarterly Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m); and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: November 5, 2004 | /s/ Walter Parks        |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                    | Walter Parks            |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
# IV.B1

# IV.B2

# IV.B3

# IV.B4

# V.A1

# V.A2

# V.A3

# V.A4

# V.A5

# V.B1

# V.B2

# V.C4

# V.C5

# V.C7

# VI.G2

http://oactweb/TR/2018_testing/lr6g2.html

# VI.G4

# VI.G5

# VI.G6

# VI.G7

# VI.G8

# VI.G9

# VI.G10
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Healthy Body Weight Research: Grand Forks, ND
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Grand Forks, North Dakota Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center Healthy Body Weight Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4160 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.4160

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two

                                 An Act

 
To amend title 40, United States Code, to grant the Supreme Court of the 
United States security-related authorities equivalent to the legislative 
                         and executive branches.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 
2022''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROTECT FAMILY MEMBERS.
    Section 6121(a)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
        (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
        (2) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; 
    and
        (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(C) any member of the immediate family of the Chief 
        Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of the Supreme 
        Court if the Marshal determines such protection is 
        necessary.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00332

- CV

M ATTHEW K NORR

, Appellant

V

.

M ARILYNN M ARIE K NORR , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 231st District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 231

- 448419

- 08 )

September 23, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Matthe w Knorr shall pay all of the costs of

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwe ll
#### STATE v. SAMUEL RICHARD MEDLIN.

(Filed 12 June, 1959.)

Appeal by defendant from *Johnston, J.,*January Criminal Term, 1959, of Mooke.

The defendant was tried on warrants charging him with an assault upon an officer, resisting arrest, drunken driving and failing to stop for a siren. In apt time defendant interposed a plea in abatement for change of venue .as to the alleged offenses of assault and resisting arrest. The court declined to change the venue and defendant entered pleas of not guilty on all charges in the warrants. Evidence was offered both by the State and the defendant. The court submitted the case to the jury only on the alleged offense of operating a vehicle on a .public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The jury found the defendant guilty of the violation of G.S. 20-138.

From a judgment of imprisonment defendant appealed and assigned error.

*II. F. Seawell, Jr., for defendant, appellant.*

*Attorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General Mc-Galliard for the State.*

PER Cueiam.

The action of the court in submitting the case to the jury only upon the charge of operating a vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and the verdict of guilty only as to that offense are tantamount to a verdict of not guilty on the charges of assault, resisting arrest and failing to stop for a siren. *S. v. Wolfe,*227 N.C. 461, 463, 42 S.E. 2d 515. Thus the question of the correctness of the judge’s ruling on the plea in abatement is moot. The evidence in the case was competent on the charge of drunken driving. In the conduct of the trial and the charge of the court no prejudicial error has been made to appear. *S. v. Poolos,*241 N.C. 382, 383, 85 S.E. 2d 342.

No Error.