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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 22, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

128768 Michael F. Cavanagh (100) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, TERI ROHDE, BRENDON QUILTER, MARY Justices QUILTER, WALTER MACKEY, BARBARA MACKEY, GARY GIBSON, ELLEN GIBSON, TED JUNGKUNTZ, LOISE JUNGKUNTZ, DAVID SPONSELLER, MA RY SPONSELLER, MIKE GLADIEUX, MA RTHA GLADIEUX, HELEN RYSSE, TERR Y TROMBLEY, JOHN WILLIAMS, and THERESE WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 128768 COA: 253565 Washtenaw CC: 03-001046-CZ ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS a/k/a PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR, BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, a nd TREASURER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendants-Appellees,

and

ANN ARBOR EDUCATI ON ASSOCIATION, MEA/NEA, Intervening D efendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for clarification of order granting leave to appeal is considered, and it is GRANTED. The Co urt is not granting leave to appeal on Issue II in the application for leave to appeal.

p1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 22, 2006

Clerk
April 1-

July 15

April 1-July 1

March 15-July 15

April 1-

July 15

April 1-July 1

RI:April 1-August 1

CT: April 15-August 1

March 1-

July 15

April 1-

August 31

April 1-August 1

April 15-

August 1

April 1-

Aug 1

May 15-

August 1

April 15-July 15

May 15-August 1

April 15-

July 15

May 1-

Aug 1

DE: April 15-August 15

MD: April 15-August 15

VT:

April 15-July 31

NH: April 15-August 1

Ap MA: April 15-August 1 ril 1-

Aug 1

April 1-Aug 1

April 1-

July 31

June 1-

Aug 1

May 15-

Aug 1

April 1-

Aug 15

April 15-July 1

April 15-Sept 15

March 15-

July 15

NJ: April 1-July 15

April 1-

Sept 1

April 15-

Aug 15

Mar 15-

July 15 May 1-

July 15

May 15-

August 1

April 15-August 1

May 1-August 1

May 1-July 15 May 1-July 15

April 1-

July 15

May 15-July 15

April 1-July 1

May 15-July 15

March 1-July 15

May 1-July 1

March 1-July 1

Grazing: March 1-June 1

Haying: March 1-July 1

Primary Nesting Season Dates and Duration

Alaska: May 15 to June 25

Map created by DAFP/CD/PAB June 16, 2020

Legend

State Boundaries

Less Than 100 Days

100 to 125 Days

126 to 153 Days
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2530

AN ACT

To amend the Federal Land Policy and Manageother purposes. rior, for fiscal years 1994 and 1995, and for of Land Management, Department of the Inte- programs, functions, and activities of the Bureau ment Act of 1976 to authorize appropriations for
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2530

AN ACT

To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

of 1976 to authorize appropriations for programs, functions, and activities of the Bureau of Land Management,

Department of the Interior, for fiscal years 1994 and

1995, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND STATUTORY REFERENCE.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 BLM Authorization Act’’.
2

HR 2530 EH

1 (b) STATUTORY REFERENCE.—As used in this Act,

2 the term ‘‘the Act’’ means the Federal Land Policy and

3 Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION AND FUTURE REAUTHORIZA5 TIONS.

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Section 318(a) of the Act (43

7 U.S.C. 1748(a)) is amended by striking out ‘‘October 1,

8 1978’’ and by inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘October 1, 1995’’.

9 (b) FUTURE REAUTHORIZATIONS.—Section 318(b)

10 of the Act is amended by striking ‘‘May 15, 1977, and

11 not later than May 15 of each second even numbered year

12 thereafter’’ and by inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘January 1,

13 1994, and January 1 of each second odd-numbered year

14 thereafter’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 13,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2527 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2527

   To forgive the repayment to the Government of advance deficiency 
 payments received by producers who are prevented from planting a crop 
             due to damaging weather or related condition.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 1993

  Mr. Minge introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To forgive the repayment to the Government of advance deficiency 
 payments received by producers who are prevented from planting a crop 
             due to damaging weather or related condition.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That effective only for 
the 1993 crops of wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, and rice, sections 
114(a)(2) (G), (H), and (I) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
1445j(a)(2) (G), (H), and (I)) shall not apply to any advance 
deficiency payment made to a producer with respect to that portion of 
the crop that is prevented from being planted due to damaging weather 
or related condition, as such terms are defined in section 2251 of the 
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1401 
note).

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.1

Lab*One* 2003 Management Incentive Compensation Program

The LabOne 2003 Management Incentive Compensation Program is designed to motivate and reward the accomplishment of targeted operating results.  The Compensation Committee establishes operating goals under the Program based upon its judgment of reasonable targeted diluted earnings per share.  The size of the incentive pool increases up to approximately $2 million pursuant to a formula established by the Committee based on increased diluted earnings per share thresholds.  The incentive pool for designated managers and officers is distributed in cash after year-end according to a pre-established weighting.  The weighting is based upon the Committee's determination of management's potential contribution to the Company's financial and strategic goals for the year.
##### 



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 Pioneer Companies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Gary L. Pittman, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (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: May 13, 2005
    /s/ Gary L. PittmanGary L. PittmanVice President and Chief Financial Officer
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00013

- CV

IN RE MARK FISHER AN D REECE BOUDREAUX RELATOR S

AND

NO. 02

- 11

- 00014

- CV

IN RE BANK OF AMERICA, N.A

. RELATOR

------------
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

### MEMORANDUM O PINION 1

------------
The court has considered r elators’ petition s for writ of mandamus and is of
the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators’ petition s for writ of

mandamus are denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, DAUPHINOT, and MEIER, J J.

DELIVERED: February 1, 2012

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8 (d).
947 A.2d 708

#### Sally L. MOODY, Robert J. Moody, Fred J. Brient, Jr., Cynthia I. Brient, William Duff McCrady, William A. Lucas, A.J. Lucas, Glenn G. Beatty, Sharon L. Beatty, Rodney J. Denardo, Melissa Denardo, Dennis H. Iseman, William R. Iseman and Estate of Mary E. Keller, David J. Kushon, and Janie B. Kushon, Petitioners v. ALLEGHENY VALLEY LAND TRUST, Armstrong County Conservancy Charitable Trust, Armstrong Rails to Trails Association, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Jerry F. Longwell, Lee J. Calarie, David R. Ruppert, Norman Karp, and Wilhelminna Decock, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 16, 2008.

*576
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioners, are:

> 1. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of state and federal law, in reversing the trial judge’s finding that Conrail intended to abandon the line without railbanking, when:

> a. Conrail testified that they expressly refused to rail-bank “privately” or “publicly;”

> b. Conrail testified that “they did not enter into any kind of rail banking agreement with any party;” and

> c. Conrail proposed and entered an agreement of sale in which they did not retain any right to reenter or reactivate the line; the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with prior Superior Court decisions in this case that Conrail abandoned all past, present, and future interest in the easement[?]

> 2. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of state and federal law when it held that the mere sale of a former easement, created for railroad purposes only, to a private trail sponsor must result in a railbanking?

> 8. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law when it held that trail use constituted continued rail use under Pennsylvania law?

> 4. Does the Superior Court’s holding result in an unconstitutional taking, as Respondents:

> a. Are not a municipality with powers of eminent domain authorized by the PA Act as was the case in *Buffalo Twp;*and

> b. Cannot meet the requirements of the National Trails System Act; including the voluntary agreement of the railroad to railbank?

Justice McCAFFERY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RITA BARRETT,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 16

- 73031

Tax Ct. No. 26207

- 15

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted August 9, 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Rita Barrett ap peals pro se from the Tax Court’ s summary judgment in h er

action challenging the disallowance o f her request for an abatement of interest for

the tax year 1976

. We have jurisdic tion under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de

novo. Miller v. Comm’ r , 310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 73031

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of res

judicata because Barrett raised the same claim regarding abatement of interest for

the 1976 tax year in a prior tax court proceeding that was decided on the merits.

See Baker v. I

RS (In re Baker) , 74 F.3d 906, 9 10 (9th Cir. 1996) (“ Under th [e]

doctrine [of res judicata], a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the

parties from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action

. ”).

Contrary to Barrett’s contentions, Barrett failed to identify any new evidence or

fraudulent conduct that would preclude th e application of res judicata.

We reject as meritless Barrett’s contention that her case was not adequately

considered as a result of the assignment to a new judge.

Because we affirm on the basis of r es judicata, we do not consider the merits

of Barrett’s claims.

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo Nolberto PENA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7388.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 27, 2011.

*710Domingo Nolberto Pena, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., James L. Trump, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Domingo Nolberto Pena seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pena has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Pena’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010). Pena’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

*711We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
SECOND MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT

THIS SECOND MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT ("Second Modification") is entered into as of March 26, 2002, by and between COMMERCE BANK, N.A. ("Bank") and LABONE, INC. ("Company")

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Letter Agreement dated December 17, 2002, by and between Bank and Company, as modified by that certain Modification and Extension Agreement dated March 8, 2002 ("First Modification"), Bank agreed to extend a Line of Credit to Company in the maximum principal amount of $35,000,000, and to make advances to Company, subject to certain terms, limitations and conditions contained therein;

WHEREAS, to evidence the borrowings and the related obligations under the Line of Credit, Company has delivered to Bank that certain Line of Credit Note ("Note") dated of even date with the Letter Agreement;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Letter Agreement, Company's right to request advances from Bank automatically terminated on March 10, 2002 ("Termination Date"), and all sums outstanding on such date were due and payable in full; and

WHEREAS, Bank and Company have agreed to further modify the Letter Agreement and the Note as hereinafter set forth.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, Bank and Company do hereby mutually agree as follows:

1. Terms used herein, which are defined in the Letter Agreement, shall have the meanings given to them in the Letter Agreement.

2. The third paragraph of the Letter Agreement, titled "Repayment, Maturity", is hereby further modified by deleting the date "March 31, 2002" and inserting in lieu thereof the date "May 31, 2002". The Note is hereby further modified consistent with the foregoing modification.

3. Except as modified herein and by the First Modification, all other terms, provisions, conditions and obligations imposed under the terms of the Letter Agreement and Note shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and certified by Bank and Company.

4. This Second Modification shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Missouri.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Bank and Company have executed this Second Modification as of the date first above written.

COMMERCE BANK, N.A.

By: */s/ Pam Hill*
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2269 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2269

 To provide for annual observances of certain legal public holidays on 
                        their traditional dates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 1993

  Mr. Crane introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for annual observances of certain legal public holidays on 
                        their traditional dates.

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

SECTION 1. LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAYS.

    (a) Designation of Holidays.--Section 6103(a) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) The following are legal public holidays:
            ``New Year's Day, January 1.
            ``Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., January 15.
            ``Washington's Birthday, February 22.
            ``Memorial Day, May 30.
            ``Independence Day, July 4.
            ``Labor Day, the 1st Monday in September.
            ``Columbus Day, October 12.
            ``Veterans Day, November 11.
            ``Thanksgiving Day, the 4th Thursday in November.
            ``Christmas Day, December 25.''.
    (b) Days for Observance.--Any reference in a law of the United 
States to the observance of a legal public holiday on a day other than 
the day prescribed for the observance of the holiday by section 6103(a) 
of title 5, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a) of this 
section) shall be considered to be a reference to the day for the 
observance of the holiday prescribed in such section.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Section 1 shall take effect on January 1, 1994.

                                 <all>
```
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Royal BodyCare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Clinton H. Howard, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company does 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 his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Clinton H. HowardClinton H. HowardChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer August 12, 2004




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Royal BodyCare, Inc. and will be retained by Royal BodyCare, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 38 (Monday, February 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4672]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[(Order 2001-2-16) Docket OST-99-5948]


Application of Air Excursions, LLC for Issuance of New 
Certificate Authority

AGENCY:  Department of Transportation.

ACTION:  Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2001-2-16) Docket OST-99-
5948.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Air 
Excursions, LLC fit, willing, and able and awarding it a certificate of 
public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate air 
transportation of persons, property and mail as a certificated air 
carrier.

RESPONSES:  Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket OST-99-5948 and addressed to the Department of Transportation 
Dockets, PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, and 
should be served on all persons listed in Attachment A to the order. 
Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than March 2, 
2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. James Lawyer, Air Carrier Fitness 
Division (X-56, Room 6401), US Department of Transportation, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-1064.

    Dated: February 20, 2001.
Susan E. McDermott,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 01-4672 Filed 2-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-M