alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MIE 800 Generic Notice of Hearing (Rev. 3/98)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE: REFRIGERANT COMPRESSORS

ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case No. 2:09-md-2042

Honorable Sean F. Cox

 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

General Electric Company v. Whirlpool

Corporation et al. Case No. 2:13-cv-12638

______________________________________

NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

You are hereby notified to appear before the Honorable Sean F. Cox, United States

District Judge for the above proceeding on:

DATE TIME ROOM 257

Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:00 a.m. Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse

231 W. Lafayette

Detroit, Michigan 48226

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I hereby certify that a copy of this notice was served upon counsel of record on this date August

7, 2013 by ordinary mail and/or electronic mail.

Date: August 7, 2013 s/ Jennifer McCoy 

Deputy Clerk 313-234-2650

2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 389 Filed 08/07/13 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 8751
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 40

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the deductibility

of certain home office expenses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. BACHUS, Mr.

BAKER of California, Mr. BAKER of Louisiana, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr.

BARTON of Texas, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr.

BREWSTER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CAMP, Mr. CANADY, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. COX, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. FORBES,

Mr. GUNDERSON, Mr. HORN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr.

LEACH, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. PACKARD, Ms. PRYCE, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. SCHAEFER, Mr. SHAYS,

Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. WOLF, and Mr.

ZIMMER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect

to the deductibility of certain home office expenses.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 40 IH

1 SECTION 1. DEDUCTIBILITY OF CERTAIN HOME OFFICE EX2 PENSES.

3 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Subparagraph (A) of section

4 280A(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

5 to certain business use) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(A) as the principal place of business for

7 any trade or business of the taxpayer, or as the

8 sole fixed location of business for any trade or

9 business of the taxpayer who has no other fixed

10 location of business for such trade or business,

11 regardless of (i) the amount of time or type of

12 work the taxpayer performs in such fixed loca13 tion, or (ii) the proportion of the total income

14 from the business attributable to such loca15 tion,’’

16 (b) STORAGE OF PRODUCT SAMPLES.—Paragraph

17 (2) of section 280A(c) of such Code is amended by striking

18 ‘‘inventory’’ and inserting ‘‘inventory or product samples’’.

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

20 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the

21 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM YEAR ENDED
MAY 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000             MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000             MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                         106,806                     501
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,874                   3,424
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,469                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,512                   2,246
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               245,821                   6,171
<PP&E>                                       1,193,157                  84,460
<DEPRECIATION>                                 161,482                   5,459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,530,904                 213,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          686,850                 221,917
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        19,621                  11,284
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,132,903                 123,716
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,530,904                 213,442
<SALES>                                        235,808                  13,616
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,808                  13,616
<CGS>                                          594,297                  43,616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,962,850                 150,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,786                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              98,611                   6,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,778,867)               (143,475)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,778,867)               (143,475)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.27)                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.19)                  (0.01)


</TABLE>
<page>
			            EXHIBIT 32.02


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




In connection with the Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Charter
MSFCM L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Kevin Perry,
Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.








By:	  /s/	Kevin Perry

Name:		Kevin Perry
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		March 31, 2005
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Patrick Jermaine Edwards v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 081

- CR

Trial court case number: 1 4 3 2 9 3 0

Trial court: 18 5 th District Court of Harris County

A jury convicted a ppellant, Patrick Jermaine Edwards, of the felony offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft, and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for forty years. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We deny the

motion.

The State first contends that the case should be dismissed because “ app ellant executed a valid waiver of the right to appeal pursuant to an agreement that the State

would recommend a 40

- year sentence.” However, the trial court has executed a certification of appellant’s right to appeal stating that this case “is not a plea

- b argain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal for guilt/innocence only.” Accordingly, the trial court has given appellant permission to appeal. See Jones v. State , No. 01

- 09

- 00267

- CR, 2010 WL 5395682, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 30, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Willis v. State , 121 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)).

The State next contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction because appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal. Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than January 9, 2016. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.1. Appellant filed his notice of a ppeal in the trial court on January 19, 2016, and a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal in this Court on January 22, 2016. See id. 26.3. On February 18, 2016, we granted the motion and extended the time to file appellant’s notice of a ppeal to January 22, 2016.Accordingly, the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction is

denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually

Da te: September 8, 2016
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the Companys financial condition and result of operations.
 /s/ Noah D. Beerman
    
    /s/ Amy B. TataNoah D. Beerman
    
    Amy B. TataPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    Treasurer and ControllerAugust 16, 2010
    
    August 16, 2010
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

We, William T.Yeates, Chief Executive Officer, and Paul E. Ross, Vice President—Finance,Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Power-One, Inc. (the “Company”),do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to ourknowledge:

(i)            the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)        theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date: March 9, 2006                     |
|----------------------------------------------|
| /s/  WILLIAM T. YEATES                       |   |
| William T. Yeates                            |
| *Chief Executive Officer*                    |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)*              |
| /s/  PAUL E. ROSS                            |   |
| Paul E. Ross                                 |
| *Vice President—Finance, Treasurer and* |
| *Chief Financial Officer*                    |
| *(Principal Financial Officer)*              |

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 149 (Friday, August 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45008-45009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17670]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices

[[Page 45009]]

also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of 
Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the 
Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board 
of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 18, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 
Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. John Smoluch and Donna Smoluch, both of Coon Rapids, Minnesota, 
to retain and acquire control of Community Pride Bank Corporation, Ham 
Lake, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain and acquire control of 
Community Pride Bank, Isanti, Minnesota.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. The Barbara Dean Flaming Trust and Brenda Jean Flaming Salinas, 
trustee; the Brenda Jean Flaming Trust and Barbara Dean Flaming Waite, 
trustee; the Michael Todd Flaming Trust and Brenda Jean Flaming 
Salinas, trustee; and the Flaming Children 2008 Irrevocable Trust and 
Gerald R. Chelgren, trustee; all of Cherokee, Oklahoma, part of a group 
acting in concert, to acquire and retain control of Alfalfa County 
Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire and retain control of 
ACB Bank, both in Cherokee, Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 29, 2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-17670 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff Case No. 09-12773 

 Hon. Patrick J. Duggan 

-vAngela M. Andrews, 

 Defendant 

________________________________________________________________ 

ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE OF PROCESS BY SUBSTITUTED MEANS

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The plaintiff has filed a petition for an order permitting substituted service 

of process and an affidavit by a process server reciting the unsuccessful 

attempts at service of the summons and compliant. The court finds that service 

of process cannot reasonably be made in a manner set forth under Michigan law, 

and that the substitute means requested reasonably are calculated to give the 

defendant actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1); Mich. Ct. R. 2.105(I)(1). 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s petition for order permitting 

substitute service of process [dkt # 3] is GRANTED. 

 It is ORDERED that the plaintiff may serve the defendant, Angela M. 

Andrews, with the summons and a copy of the complaint by: 

(A) Posting a copy thereof, along with a copy of this petition and order for 

substituted service of process, at the defendant’s residence at: 3320 

Spinnaker Lane, 5C, Detroit, Michigan 48207; 

2:09-cv-12773-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 11/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 16
(B) Mailing a copy of the same by certified mail (return receipt requested) 

to the defendant’s residence noted above; and 

(C) Mailing a copy of the same by first class mail to the defendant’s 

residence noted above 

The plaintiff shall file a certificate confirming service as provided herein. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: November 4, 2009 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel 

of record on November 4, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem

 Case Manager 

2:09-cv-12773-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 11/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 17
Exhibit 10.1

 

THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC.

385 Washington Street

St. Paul, Minnesota  55102

 

As of March 24, 2014

 

Jay S. Fishman

485 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10017

 

Re:                             Relinquishment of Guaranteed Minimum Annual Equity Grant and “Golden Parachute” Excise Tax Gross Up Protection

 

Dear Jay:

 

I am writing to confirm your agreement to relinquish certain of your rights under the terms of your employment letter agreement with The Travelers Companies, Inc. (the “Company”), dated as of December 19, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”), as set forth below.  Capitalized terms used herein without definition have the meanings assigned to such terms under your Employment Agreement.  Effective as of the date hereof, the Employment Agreement shall be amended as follows:

 

·                  The first sentence of Section 5 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to remove the minimum amount for your Annual Equity Grant.  Accordingly, the following words shall be stricken from the end of such sentence: “with a then present value equal to not less than $6.25 million (such value to be based on a Black-Scholes valuation, in the case of options and similar awards, and on a valuation method mutually acceptable to you and the Committee, in the case of other awards)”.

 

·                  Section 10 of the Employment Agreement (which gives you the right to receive a potential Gross Up Payment to be made whole for any excise taxes that you might incur under Section 4999 of the Code in the event that payments to you are considered “excess parachute payments” under Section 280G of the Code) is hereby stricken in its entirety.

 

Except as set forth above, the terms of your Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

 

	
 
    	
Sincerely,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By: 
    	
/s/ Donald J. Shepard
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name: Donald J. Shepard
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title: Director
    
	
Agreed and accepted
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
as of the date first written above:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Jay S. Fishman
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Jay S. Fishman
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

David A. Laskowski,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-11939

Commissioner of Social Security, Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER 

ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brought this action challenging a final decision of Defendant Commissioner

denying his application for Supplemental Security Income. Thereafter, both parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment, which were referred to Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636. On June 29, 2010, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued her R&R

which recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. It further

recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. 

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a

matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after

being served with a copy of the R&R. “The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall

make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the

magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made.” Id. 

The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that

Plaintiff has filed no objections to the R&R.

The Court hereby ADOPTS the June 29, 2010 R&R in its entirety. IT IS ORDERED that
2

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint be

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: July 21, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July

21, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 2, 2020.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1373

Lower Tribunal No. 19-12149

________________

Oscar Tuoza, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, 

Judge.

Shield Law Group of Florida, LLC, and Jamie Alvarez (Davie), for appellants.

Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., and Maureen G. Pearcy, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ. 

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal without prejudice as one 
2

taken from a non-final, non-appealable order. See Cicco v. Luckett Tobaccos, Inc., 

934 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“We have long adhered to the rule that 

piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are interrelated and involve 

the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit.”); S.L.T. Warehouse 

Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1974) (“Generally, the test employed by the 

appellate court to determine finality of an order, judgment or decree is whether the 

order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing 

further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as 

between the parties directly affected.”).

Appeal dismissed.
#### Tiffany A. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. PACE MEMBERSHIP WAREHOUSE, Respondent.

No. 70173.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 18, 1997.

Brian Stokes, Seiner, Glasner, Komen, Berger & Galganski, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant.

Raymond J. Flunker, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Tiffany A. Roberts, appeals the Final Award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) denying part of her claim for permanent partial disability and denying her claim for the cost of past medical treatment. We affirm.

We have read the briefs of the parties and have reviewed the legal file and find the Final Award of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence and no error of law appears. As we further find no jurisprudential purpose would be served *665by an extended opinion, we affirm the Commission’s award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEBORAH TAITT,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

09CV-12576

vs.

HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On August 17, 2009, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk issued a Report and

Recommendation, in which he recommends that the court deny plaintiff’s motion for injunctive

relief. Neither party has objected to this recommendation. The court has reviewed the matter and

believes that magistrate judge correctly analyzed all of the issues. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk’s Report and Recommendation

is accepted and adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief [docket entry

2] is denied.

S/Bernard A. Friedman___________________

Dated: September 9, 2009 BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

Detroit, Michigan SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-12576-BAF Doc # 14 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 98