alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17100]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposal for the revised collection of information listed below 
has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). 
Copies of this information collection and the supporting documentation 
may be obtained by contacting Reclamation's Clearance Officer at the 
telephone number listed below. Comments on this information collection 
should be made within 30 days directly to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk 
Officer for the Bureau of Reclamation, Paperwork Reduction Project 
(1006-0005), Washington, DC 20503, Telephone (202) 395-7340.
    Title: Individual Landholder's Certification and Reporting Forms 
for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR Part 426.
    Abstract: This information collection requires certain landholders 
to complete forms demonstrating their compliance with the acreage 
limitation provisions of reclamation law. The forms establish each 
landholder's status with respect to landownership limitations, full-
cost pricing thresholds, lease requirements, and other provisions of 
reclamation law.
    Bureau Form Numbers: 7-21INFO, 7-2180, 7-2180EZ, 7-2181, 7-2184, 7-
2190, 7-2190EZ, 7-2191, 7-2194, 7-21PE, 7-21TRUST, 7-21VERIFY, 7-21XS, 
7-21FC, 7-21CONT.
    OMB Approval Number: 1006-0005.
    Reclamation will display a valid OMB control number on either the 
forms or the instructions associated with the forms. Persons who are 
required to respond to the information collection need not respond 
unless the OMB control number is current.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Description of Respondents: Owners and lessees of land on Federal 
Reclamation projects, whose landholdings exceed specified thresholds.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 41,400.
    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.02.
    Estimated Annual Responses: 42,200.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 14,800.
    Reclamation's Clearance Officer: Marilyn Rehfeld (303) 236-0305 
extension 459.
    All comments received on this information collection requested in 
Federal Register notice 61 FR 9485, Mar. 8, 1996, have been summarized 
and included in the request for OMB approval.

    Dated: June 28, 1996.
J. Austin Burke,
Director, Program Analysis Office.
[FR Doc. 96-17100 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-M
#### STATE BAR OF TEXAS, Petitioner, v. Lloyd E. HUMPHREYS, Respondent.

No. D-3811.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 23, 1993.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, which became effective on May 1,1992, provide for an appeal from a determination of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals directly to this court. We consider the appropriate procedure for such appeals.

Rule 7.11 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure provides:

> An appeal from a determination of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals ... must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court within fourteen days after the receipt by the appealing party of the determination of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals from which the appeal is taken. Except as expressly herein provided, the appeal must be made pursuant to the then applicable Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

It is unclear from this rule, however, whether the entire appeal or merely a notice of appeal must be filed within the fourteen-day period or whether the timetable for briefs is governed by that applicable to the courts of appeals or the supreme court.

Because an appeal from the Board of Disciplinary Appeals resembles that taken from a trial court to the court of appeals, similar procedures should apply. Within fourteen days after receipt of notice of a final determination by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals,' a notice of appeal must be filed directly with this court. The record must be filed within sixty days after the Board’s determination. The appealing party’s brief is due thirty days after the record is filed, and the responding party’s brief must be filed within twenty-five days thereafter.

To ensure that all parties are aware of the appropriate procedures, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals is instructed to provide a copy of this order to all parties with any final determination it renders.
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased May 2, 2023 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### None Available

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c ca les/

.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FMIO, INC. and

RICHARD A. GARST,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 09-12561

vs.

HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

TOWNSHIP OF SUMMERFIELD 

MICHIGAN, et al.

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the Court’s December 17, 2010 Order granting

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Local Rule 7.1(g) of this Court states that “[g]enerally, and without restricting the court's

discretion, the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present

the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.” Further,

it states that a movant in a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate a palpable defect by

which the court and the parties have been misled. Such defect has not been shown. Contrary to

Plaintiff’s contentions, the Court was not misled by Defendants’ legal arguments, as the Court

conducted its own review of the law before rendering its Opinion. Plaintiff has not demonstrated

a “palpable defect” by which the Court has been misled. 

In addition, Plaintiff’s arguments pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), seeking to alter or

amend the judgment, are unavailing. Plaintiff’s contention that it seeks to correct a clear error of

law or prevent manifest injustice are not compelling, as the Court has already reviewed the facts

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 44 filed 02/24/11 PageID.713 Page 1 of 2
2

and law of this case, and does not find that such clear error or manifest injustice exists. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

S/Bernard A. Friedman______________

Dated: February 24, 2011 BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

Detroit, Michigan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 44 filed 02/24/11 PageID.714 Page 2 of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135646 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135646 

 COA: 281720 
 Wayne CC: 04-009591-FC

JESSIE JEROME LEE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0519 

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. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RUSTY LAPALME,

Defendant/Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff/Respondent.

 /

Case No. 06-20465-50

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On July 31, 2014, this Court denied Petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

sentence, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This matter is now before the Court on

Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability [2615] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

The court may issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

[T]he petitioner need not show that he should prevail on the merits. He has

already failed in that endeavor. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are

debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a

different manner] or that the questions are "adequate to deserve encouragement

to proceed further."

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983); Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 549

(E.D. Mich. 1999). 

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order denying Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct sentence [2611], this Court reiterates its finding that Petitioner has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right with respect to any of his claims. 

Case 2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM ECF No. 2619, PageID.18972 Filed 08/20/14 Page 1 of 2
Being further advised in the premises and having read the pleadings, the Court hereby

DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability.

SO ORDERED.

S/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: August 20, 2014

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

on August 20, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

Case 2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM ECF No. 2619, PageID.18973 Filed 08/20/14 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FOREST M. STARLING and

LINDA STARLING,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 09-CV-13189 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

GROSSE POINTE MOVING CO.,

GROSSE POINTE MOVING CO. d/b/a

GROSSE POINTE MOVING AND STORAGE CO.,

and GROSSE POINTE MOVING AND

STORAGE COMPANY,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING AUGUST 19, 2009 SHOW CAUSE ORDER (# 2)

Defendants Grosse Pointe Moving Co. and Grosse Pointe Moving and Storage Co.

(collectively "GPM") were ordered on August 19, 2009 to show cause by September 8,

2009 why this matter should not be remanded to state court for lack of federal question

jurisdiction consistent with the well-pleaded complaint rule and the plaintiffs' six count

complaint alleging state law claims arising out of GPM's acts of moving the plaintiffs'

personal property from Grosse Isle Township, Michigan, to Naples, Florida, in September

2006. In timely responding to the show cause order, GPM has established that the

plaintiffs' state law claims are completely preempted by the federal Carmack Amendment,

and therefore removal to federal court was proper as a narrow exception to the wellpleaded complaint rule. See Solectron USA, Inc. v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.,

520 F. Supp. 2d 904, 908-910 (W.D. Tenn. 2002) (citing inter alia Am. Synthetic Rubber

Corp. v. Louisville Nashville RR Co., 422 F.2d 462, 465-66 (6th Cir. 1970)). Defendants

2:09-cv-13189-GCS-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 09/02/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 113
2

GPM have shown cause as ordered. Accordingly,

The court's August 19, 2009 Order requiring defendants GPM to show cause is

hereby DISMISSED.

 SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2009

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

September 2, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-13189-GCS-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 09/02/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 114
Exhibit 32.2


                           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 Quarterly Report of Endeavor Explorations Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 Company.


Date:  June 14, 2007


/s/ Belkis Jimenez Rivero
---------------------------------------
Belkis Jimenez Rivero, Principal Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLARD L. SLOAN, EUGENE J.

WINNINGHAM, AND JAMES L. KELLEY, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

BORGWARNER INC., BORGWARNER 

DIVERSIFIED TRANSMISSION 

PRODUCTS INC., AND BORGWARNER 

FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLANS, 

 Defendants. 

Case 2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM 

U.S. District Judge Paul D. Borman 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub 

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

 Please take notice that Bobby R. Burchfield, formerly of McDermott Will & Emery, as 

counsel for the defendants, is no longer affiliated with McDermott Will & Emery. Mr. 

Burchfield will continue as counsel for the defendants with King & Spalding LLP. 

Effective immediately, all further communications regarding the above-captioned matter 

should be addressed to Defendants’ counsel of record as follows: 

Bobby R. Burchfield 

King & Spalding LLP 

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

 Telephone: (202) 626-5524 

 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 

bburchfield@kslaw.com 

Dated: April 20, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

s/Bobby R. Burchfield 

Bobby R. Burchfield 

(bburchfield@kslaw.com) 

King & Spalding LLP 

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Telephone: (202) 626-5524 

Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 140 Filed 04/20/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 7556
 -2- 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been forwarded to all 

counsel of record via electronic filing system pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on 

the 20th day of April, 2015. 

s/Bobby R. Burchfield 

Bobby R. Burchfield 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 140 Filed 04/20/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 7557
2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2547 Filed 03/13/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 18633
2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2547 Filed 03/13/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 18634
2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2547 Filed 03/13/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 18635
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of YaFarm Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhiguang Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Dated: May 24, 2010
/s/  Zhiguang ZhangBy:  Zhiguang ZhangIts:  Chief Executive Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 this Report of Uplift Nutrition, Inc. (the "Registrant") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the " Report"), I, Gary C. Lewis, hereby 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 and belief:  (1) This 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:May 17, 2010By:/s/Gary C. LewisGary C. Lewis
President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)  Date:May 17, 2010By:/s/Gary C. LewisGary C. Lewis
Principal Financial Officer (CFO) and Principal Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 408 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 408

To repeal the reduction in the deductible portion of business meals and 
     entertainment made by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Zimmer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the reduction in the deductible portion of business meals and 
     entertainment made by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN DEDUCTIBLE PORTION OF BUSINESS MEALS 
              AND ENTERTAINMENT.

    Section 13209 of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 is hereby 
repealed, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and 
administered as if such section (and the amendments made thereby) had 
not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
cbmg_ex1036.htm


Exhibit 10.36


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 




  





9











  






 


 




  





10











  






 


 




  





11











  






 


 




  





12











  






 


 




  





13











  






 


 




  





14











  






 


 




  





15











  






 


 




  





16











  






 


 




  





17











  






 


 




  





18











  






 


 




  





19











  






 


 




  





20











  






 


 




  





21











  






 


 




  





22











  






 


 


23
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Matthew Krieg, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Generation Zero Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Generation Zero Group, Inc.





By:/s/ Matthew Krieg


Matthew Krieg


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)





September 17, 2010
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Antwan L. SCOTT, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 70446.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 28, 1997.

David L. Simpson, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for defendant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for plaintiff/respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after his conviction by a jury of one count of unlawful use of a weapon, § 571.030, RSMo 1994, and one count of resisting arrest, § 575.150, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to a prison term of nine years for unlawful use of a weapon to run consecutively to a term of one year in the custody of the Department of Justice Services for resisting arrest. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT
32











CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL


OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Frank A. Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Velocity Oil & Gas, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Velocity Oil & Gas, Inc.





Date:  August
19, 2008





By:/s/
Frank A. Jacobs


Frank A.
Jacobs,


Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and


Principal
Financial Officer