alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135761 & (25)(26)(27) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135761 

 COA: 277784 

Muskegon CC: 01-046044-FC

ANDREW OWENS, a/k/a, 

ANDREW MOSLEY 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2007 

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). The 

motions for hearings and a new trial are DENIED. 

d0616 

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. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3633 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3633

 To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to improve a provision relating 
 to Federal procurement of recycled materials to reduce greenhouse gas 
                               emissions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 22, 2010

 Mr. Carper (for himself and Ms. Snowe) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to improve a provision relating 
 to Federal procurement of recycled materials to reduce greenhouse gas 
                               emissions.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL PROCUREMENT OF RECYCLED MATERIALS TO REDUCE 
              GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

    Section 6002(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6962(c)) 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(1) After the date'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(1) In general.--After the date'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
        (4) and (5);
            (3) in paragraph (1)(C)--
                    (A) by inserting ``subject to paragraph (3),'' 
                before ``are only available''; and
                    (B) by striking the last sentence; and
            (4) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(2) Relationship to bureau of standards guidelines.--Any 
        determination under paragraph (1)(B) shall be made on the basis 
        of the guidelines of the Bureau of Standards in any case in 
        which the material is covered by those guidelines.
            ``(3) Unreasonable price restriction.--For a product 
        containing at least 25 percent recovered materials, a price in 
        the amount of not more than 110 percent of the bid price of the 
        highest-ranked competing product containing zero or de minimis 
        recovered materials shall not be considered an unreasonable 
        price under paragraph (1)(C).''.
                                 <all>
```
Opinion issued February 11, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00534-CV

———————————

ANDREW J.C. KUNIAN, Appellant

V.

EOS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC AND EOS LNG GROUP, LLC, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2019-20153

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case was submitted to the panel on January 27, 2021, but no opinion has 

issued yet. The parties now request dismissal of the appeal under Rule 42.1 of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. We grant their joint motion. 
2

This appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice. The matter is remanded to the 

trial court. All parties shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees.

Sarah Beth Landau

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Guerra.
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION


I, William Mobley, certify that:

         1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of 110 Media
              Group, Inc.;

         2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
              untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
              fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
              circumstances under which such statements were made, not
              misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

         3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
              financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly
              present in all material respect the financial condition, results
              of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
              periods presented in this report.

         4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I am responsible for
              establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
              (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
              registrant and have:

              a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
                  that material information relating to the registrant, is made
                  known to us by others within those entities, particularly
                  during the period in which this quarterly report is being
                  prepared;

              b)  [paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC's transition
                  instruction contained in Release 34-47986]

              c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
                  controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered
                  by this report and;

              d)  presented in this report our conclusions about the
                  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of
                  the end of the period covered by this report based upon such
                  evaluation.

         5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
              based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors
              and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
              persons performing the equivalent functions):

              a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
                  internal controls which could adversely affect the
                  registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
                  financial data and have identified for the registrant's
                  auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

              b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
                  or other employees who have a significant role in the
                  registrant's internal controls.


May 15, 2006

/s/ William Mobley
------------------
William Mobley
Chief Executive Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT AMY FRANCES PESCHEL, Appellant, v. JAY GRANGER, Appellee. No. 2D20-2535 September 17, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Wesley Tibbals, Judge. Mark A. Neumaier, Tampa, for Appellant. LeesaAnn N. Dodds, Tampa for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. MORRIS, C.J., and SLEET and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.2

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 117 (Friday, June 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14445]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Certification Notice--220]


Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; Notice of 
Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant 
and Industrial Fuel Use Act

AGENCY: Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of filing.

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

SUMMARY: On February 6, 2009, the Florida Municipal Power Agency, as 
owner of a new base load electric powerplant, submitted a coal 
capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) 
pursuant to section 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use 
Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 
61. Section 201(d) of FUA requires DOE to publish a notice of receipt 
of self-certifications in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are 
available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-
024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell at (202) 586-9624.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 
et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be 
constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another 
alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA section 
201(d), in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner 
or operator of such a facility proposing to use natural gas or 
petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary 
of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a 
base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability 
to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes 
compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the 
Secretary. The Secretary is required to publish a notice in the Federal 
Register reciting that the certification has been filed.
    The following owner of a proposed new base load electric powerplant 
has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to 
FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 
501.60, 61:
    Operator: Florida Municipal Power Agency.
    Capacity: 300 megawatts (MW).
    Plant Location: Cane Island Power Park in Osceola County, Florida.
    In-Service Date: June 2011.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 15, 2009.
Anthony J. Como,
Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. E9-14445 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
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 Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

      ( print page 760)    
                    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201*et seq.*). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings.                 

*Docket Number:*                     DOT-OST-2008-0368.                 

*Date Filed:*                     November 25, 2008.                 

*Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:*                     December 16, 2008.                 

*Description:*                     Application of Ocean Sky (UK) Limited requesting an exemption and a foreign air carrier permit to conduct: (i) Foreign charter air transportation of persons, property and mail from any point or points behind any Member State and via intermediate points, to any point or points in the United States and beyond; (ii) foreign charter air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area; (iii) foreign charter air transportation of cargo between any point or points in the United States and any other point or points; (iv) other charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements; and (v) charter transportation authorized by any additional route rights made available to European Community carriers in the future, to the extent permitted by the Applicant's homeland license on file with the Department.                 

Barbara J. Hairston, 

Supervisory Dockets Officer, Alternate Federal Register Liaison. 

 [FR Doc. E9-14 Filed 1-6-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
97-89.

#### State ex rel. Griffin v. Curl.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss by Gloria Orians and on answer of respondent David L. Remy. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

 

ITRONICS INC.

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Itronics Inc. (the Company") on Form10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on January 6, 2006 (the "Report") each of theundersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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: January 6, 2006                          /S/ JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                                John W. Whitney

                                                President 

Date: January 6, 2006                         /S/ MICHAEL C. HORSLEY
                                               Michael C. Horsley

                                               Controller

34
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following entities, unless otherwise indicated, are wholly-owned direct or
indirect subsidiaries of the Registrant as of December 31, 2001:

                                                          State or Country
     Name                                                 of Organization
     ----                                                 ---------------
 1.  Baker Environmental, Inc.                            Pennsylvania
 2.  Baker Heavy & Highway, Inc.                          Pennsylvania
 3.  Baker Mellon Stuart Construction, Inc.               Pennsylvania
 4.  Mellon Stuart Building Services, Inc.                Pennsylvania
 5.  Mellon Stuart Construction International, Inc.       Pennsylvania
 6.  Michael Baker Global, Inc.                           Pennsylvania
 7.  Michael Baker Jr., Inc.                              Pennsylvania
 8.  Michael Baker Alaska, Inc.                           Alaska
 9.  Baker Construction, Inc.                             Delaware
10.  Baker Global Project Services, Inc.                  Delaware
11.  Baker Holding Corporation                            Delaware
12.  Baker/OTS, Inc.                                      Delaware
13.  International Pipeline Services, Inc.                Delaware
14.  Michael Baker International, Inc.                    Delaware
15.  Baker GeoResearch, Inc.                              District of Columbia
16.  Baker Engineering, Inc.                              Illinois
17.  Steen Production Services, Inc.                      Louisiana
18.  Michael Baker Jr. Company                            Nevada
19.  Michael Baker Architects/Engineers, P.C.             New Jersey
20.  Baker Engineering NY, Inc.                           New York
21.  Baker/MO Services, Inc.                              Texas
22.  Vermont General Insurance Company                    Vermont
23.  Michael Baker Barbados Ltd.                          Barbados
24.  Baker Energy International, Ltd.                     Cayman Islands
25.  Baker O&M International, Ltd.                        Cayman Islands
26.  Baker/OTS International, Inc.                        Cayman Islands
27.  Overseas Technical Services (Middle East) Ltd.       Cayman Islands
28.  Michael Baker de Mexico S.A. de C.V.                 Mexico
29.  OTS International Training Services Ltd.             United Kingdom
30.  Overseas Technical Services (Harrow) Ltd.            United Kingdom
31.  Baker/OTS Ltd.                                       United Kingdom
32.  SD Forty-Five Ltd.                                   United Kingdom
33.  Hanseatic Oilfield Services Ltd.                     Vanuatu
34.  OTS Finance and Management Ltd.                      Vanuatu
35.  Overseas Technical Service International Ltd.        Vanuatu
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon NETTLES, a.k.a. Sharon Lewis, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-15877

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 27, 2006.

Dean S. Daskal, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Columbus, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rick D. Collum, The Collum Law Firm, P.C., Moultrie, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On January 20, 2004, appellant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess more than 15 counterfeit access devices with intent to defraud,' in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3), and the district court, on June 24, 2004, sentenced her to prison for 125 months. She appealed, and we vacated her sentence, and remanded the ease for resentencing, because the court, prior to imposing sentence, failed to give her notice of its intent to fashion a sentence above the sentence range prescribed by the Guidelines, i.e., 18-24 months imprisonment. *Uhited States v. Nettles,*138 Fed.Appx. 299 (2005).

On remand, the court held a new sentencing hearing, and imposed the same sentence without making reference to an “upward departure.” This appeal challenges that sentence.

Appellant asks that we vacate her sentence and remand the case for resentencing on three grounds: (1) *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), barred the court from departing upward from the Guidelines sentence range; (2) the court once again failed to give appellant advance notice of its intent to depart upward; and (3) the court erred in ordering restitution in an amount greater than that relating to the offense of conviction and the parties’ oral stipulation.

*901Appellant’s first point is meritless. *Booker*instructs that the district courts treat the Guidelines as discretionary, rather than mandatory, and after consulting the Guidelines, consider the sentencing objectives set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In this case, the district court did precisely as *Booker*instructs.

Appellant’s second point lacks merit because appellant well knew that the court would depart upward from the Guidelines sentence range. If there was error, it was clearly harmless.

Appellant’s third point also lacks merit. In the plea agreement appellant made with the Government, she waived the right to appeal her sentence “except in the case of an upward departure from the guidelines pursuant to [U.S.S.G. §§ ] 5K2.0 and 4A1.3 and any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,” which is not implicated here. At the Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 hearing, the court determined that appellant executed this waiver freely and voluntarily. It therefore bars her attack on the court’s restitution order.

AFFIRMED.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”)
is entered into as of the date set forth below, effective as of August 1st, 2011 (the “Effective
Date”), by and between Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Ltd., a company organized under the laws of the State of Israel,
with offices at 12 Bazel street Petah-Tikvah, Israel, registered # 513601021, (the "Company") and Adrian Harel
ID# 067490755, of 12/2 Tel Aviv St. Ness Ziona, 74085, Israel ("Employee").


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee
entered into an Employment Agreement, dated January 30 2011 (together with any amendments, exhibits and schedules thereto,
the “Employment Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee
desire to amend the Employment Agreement on the terms and conditions more fully set forth herein;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed
as follows:


 


		1.	Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms in this Amendment shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.



 


		2.	As of the Effective Date, Employee will be entitled to a monthly gross Salary of 39,000 NIS (in
words: Thirty nine thousand).



 


		3.	Except as set forth herein, the provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and
in full force and effect.



 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,


 





	Company:	 	Employee:
	 	 	 
	Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Ltd.	 	 
	 	 	Name
	By:	Liat Sossover	 	Adrian Harel
	Title:	Chief Financial Officer	 	/s/ Adrian Harel
	/s/ Liat Sossover	 	Signature
	Signature	 	 
	Date: September 5, 2011	 	Date: September 5, 2011