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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
136943 & (32)(33)(34) Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices

v SC: 136943 COA: 282255 Wayne CC: 02-011058-01 FREDDY KATO-HARRIS LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2008 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
to remand are DENIED.

s1117 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 25, 2008

Clerk
§ 902.53 Capital Fund program scoring and thresholds. ( a ) *Scoring.* The Capital Fund program indicator score provides an assessment of a PHA's ability to obligate Capital Fund program grants in a timely manner on capital and modernization needs.
( b ) *Thresholds.* ( 1 ) The PHA's Capital Fund program score is based on a maximum of 10 points.
( 2 ) In order to receive a passing score under the Capital Fund program indicator, a PHA must achieve a score of at least 5 points, or 50 percent.
### §§491 to 503. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 491 to 503, relating to Territory of Hawaii, were omitted in view of admission of Hawaii into the Union.

Section 491, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §2, 31 Stat. 141, gave name Territory of Hawaii to Hawaiian Islands.

Section 492, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §3, 31 Stat. 141, established a Territorial government with its capital at Honolulu.

Section 493, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §1, 31 Stat. 141, defined "the laws of Hawaii" as used in this chapter.

Section 494, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §4, 31 Stat. 141, granted United States citizenship to citizens of former Republic of Hawaii and Territorial citizenship to United States citizens resident in Territory under certain conditions.

Section 495, acts Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §5, 31 Stat. 141; May 27, 1910, ch. 258, §1, 36 Stat. 443; Apr. 12, 1930, ch. 136, §1(a), 46 Stat. 160; June 6, 1932, ch. 209, §116(b), 47 Stat. 205, made applicable to Territory the United States Constitution and all other laws of the United States including laws carrying general appropriations.

Section 496, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §6, 31 Stat. 142, continued in force laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 497, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §74, 31 Stat. 155, continued in force laws of Hawaii relating to agriculture and forestry subject to modification by Congress or the Legislature.

Section 498, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §102, 31 Stat. 161, related to abolishment of laws related to postal savings banks.

Section 499, Joint Res. July 7, 1898, No. 55, §1, 30 Stat. 751, provided for assumption of public debt of Hawaii existing on July 7, 1898, not to exceed $4,000,000.

Section 500, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §9, 31 Stat. 143, amended the laws of Hawaii to read "Governor of the Territory" or "Territory" as the context required whenever reference was made to "President of the Republic" or "Republic" in the laws.

Section 501, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §10, 31 Stat. 143, continued in effect and transferred to Territory of Hawaii prior rights in favor and against the former Republic of Hawaii and preserved all criminal proceedings.

Section 502, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §10, 31 Stat. 143, prohibited suits for specific performance of personal labor contracts.

Section 503, act Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §10, 31 Stat. 143, provided that contracts made between Apr. 12, 1898, and Apr. 30, 1900, providing for service for a definite term, should be null and void.
1'. O. Box 60(,6 :\ewark, DE 19714·606tS

VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL

September23,2008

Mr. Jack Sipple, Environmental Scientist Air Quality Management Section Delaware Department ofNatural Resources & Environmental Control 156 South State Street Dover, DE 19901 A New Generation of Energy

RE: Conectiv Comments on Delaware's Proposed August 15, 2008 Visibility State Implementation Plan

Dear Mr. Sipple,

Conectiv Delmarva Generation (Conectiv or the Company) is pleased to provide the following comments to the Delaware Department ofNatural Resources & Environmental Control (DNREC or the Department) regarding the Department's August 15,2008 proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) associated with the reduction ofvisibility impairing pollutants. Conectiv is a competitive energy supplierbased in Newark, Delaware, with electric generating facilities in the mid-Atlantic region. The Company owns and operates two electric generating units (Edge Moor Units 4 and 5) in Delaware that may be affected by the proposed SIP submittal to the USEPA.

As you know, Conectiv submitted to the Department a revised Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Analysis for Edge Moor Units 4 and 5 on July 25,2008. This analysis demonstrated that the Company's proposed compliance effort associated with implementation ofthe Department's Multipollutant Regulation (Delaware RegulationNo. 1146, "Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Multi-Pollutant Regulation") would also meet BART for the two affected Units at Edge Moor.Mr. Jack Sipple DNRECAQMS September23,2008 Page 2

Delaware's Proposed Visibility State Implementation Plan (DE BART Plan) appropriately incorporates the BARToptions for Edge Moor Units 4 and 5 demonstrated in Conectiv's analysis. It is Conectiv's understanding that implementation ofthese options at Edge Moor 4 and 5 satisfies the DE BART Plan and federal BART requirements. Itis Conectiv's further understanding that the DE BART Planis based on modelingofshort term (e.g. hourly) emissionsrates for Edge Moor4 and 5 only and that the annual emissions numbers discussed in the DE BARTPlan wereprovidedfor comparativepurposes, and not used as model inputs.

As demonstratedbythe Department, generating Units subject to Regulation No. 1146 are in the process ofimplementingthe controls necessary to meet Regulation No. 1146 emissionrequirements for affected pollutants. These controls are consistent with those adopted inthe DE BART Plan. Conectiv, like the otherentities withunits subject to Regulation No. 1146, arerelying onDNREC to ensure that the RegulationNo. 1146 implementation strategies for which airquality constructionpermits havebeen agreed to and issued bythe Department are consistent with the DE BART Plan and federal BART requirements.

Thankyou for giving Conectiv this opportunity to comment onDelaware'sproposed Visibility SIP Revision. Please incorporate these comments into the hearingrecord for this proceeding.

Please feel free to contactme at (302) 451-5319 should youhave any questions regarding the above.

Sincerely, 

# }eoJ!L

Stuart Widom Sr. Environmental Consultant
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1057

___________

Pansy Blackwell, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Mike Trail; Catherine Dean; *

James Hohn; David Burnett; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Lee Fergus; Scott Hunter, Former *

Prosecuting Attorney; Thomas *

Kieklak, Attorney at Law; Richard *

C. Rhodes; Rhonda Rossman, *

County Nurse; Ron Wilson, *

Attorney at Law, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 27, 2008

Filed: May 30, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Pansy Blackwell appeals from the district court’s1

 dismissal of her civil action

in which she made various allegations about events underlying her prior state court

criminal convictions. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that

dismissal was warranted. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B,

and Blackwell’s appellate motions are denied.

______________________________
### §31. Summary trials

The provisions of sections 391–396 of title 33 shall extend to the trial of offenses against the provisions of sections 24 and 25 of this title.

(Feb. 29, 1888, ch. 17, §11, 25 Stat. 42.)
### §11163. Cost availability

As required by the rules of the Board governing discovery in Board proceedings, rail carriers shall make relevant cost data available to shippers, States, ports, communities, and other interested parties that are a party to a Board proceeding in which such data are required.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 836.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11165 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

A prior section 11163, added Pub. L. 96–448, title III, §302(a), Oct. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 1936; amended Pub. L. 103–272, §4(j)(31), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1370, related to implementation of cost accounting principles, prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a). See section 11161 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
§ 203.52 What criteria must I meet to get relief? ( a ) To qualify for relief, you must demonstrate that the sum of royalty payments over the 12 qualifying months exceeds 75 percent of the sum of net revenues (before-royalty revenues minus allowable costs, as defined in § 203.84).
( b ) To re-qualify for relief, e.g., either applying for additional relief on top of relief already granted, or applying for relief sometime after your earlier agreement terminated, you must demonstrate that: ( 1 ) You have met the criterion listed in paragraph (a) of this section, and
( 2 ) The 12 required qualifying months of operation have occurred under the current royalty arrangement.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6959** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. COURTNEY OMAR BOYD, a/k/a Omar , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News . Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 4:06

- cr - 00005

- MSD

- FBS

- 3 ; 4:11

- cv - 00140

- MSD )

Submitted : October 22, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015

Before NIEMEYER , MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Courtney Omar Boyd , Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Courtney Omar Boyd appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order de nying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion. The court construed the Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and conclud e that Boyd’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States

v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 399

- 400 (4 th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 531

- 32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized successive habeas motion). Boyd is therefore not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to ap peal the district court’s order. See McRae , 793 F.3d at 400. As noted by the district court, in the absence of prefiling authorization from this court , it lacked jurisdiction to hear Boyd’s successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Additionally, we construe Boyd’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 § 22 55 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:3 (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a n ew rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Boyd’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
proc ess.

AFFIRMED
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' RESOLUTION
                       Salient Cybertech, Inc.

The resolution that follows below was duly adopted by the directors who
RESOLVED, that the following be approved:

The  creation  of a "Class III"  Board of Director seat to  expire  at  the
Shareholder's  Meeting in the year 2002 , the naming of Todd Finch to  that
seat on the Board of Directors and the amendment of the By laws of  Salient
Cybertech,  Inc.  adding the following to the last sentence of  Article  II
part  2 Quorum and Action :  "... and in case of an equality of  votes  the
Chairman shall be entitled to cast a tie breaking vote."

        The  undersigned,  Larry  Provost, certifies that  I  am  the  duly
appointed  Secretary  of Salient Cybertech, Inc. Corporation and  that  the
above  is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted  on  October
20, 1999 by the directors thereof, in accordance with law and the Bylaws of
said Corporation.

        IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have affixed my name as Secretary of  Salient
Cybertech,  Inc.  Corporation  and  have  attached  the  seal  of   Salient
Cybertech, Inc. Corporation to this resolution.

Dated: October 20. 1999

/s/Larry Provost
__________________
Secretary


(SEAL)

<PAGE>
### §31302. Availability of instruments, copies, and information

The Secretary shall—

(1) make any instrument filed or recorded with the Secretary under this chapter available for public inspection;

(2) on request, provide a copy, including a certified copy, of any instrument made available for public inspection under this chapter; and

(3) on request, provide a certificate containing information included in an instrument filed or recorded under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 100–710, title I, §102(c), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4740; Pub. L. 111–281, title IX, §913(a)(1), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 3017.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 31302(1) | 46:927 (1st sentence) |
| 31302(2) | 46:927 (2d sentence) |
| 31302(3) | New |

Section 31302(1) makes all instruments filed for recording or recorded with the Secretary of Transportation available for public inspection. The only substantive change to law made by this subsection is the inclusion of instruments filed for recording, which is in keeping with the new requirements on filing of instruments made in section 31321.

Section 31302(2) requires the Secretary to provide the public with a certified copy of the material made available to the public under subsection (a). This subsection makes no substantive change to law.

Section 31302(3) requires the Secretary, on request, to issue a certificate containing the information included in instruments on file, such as certificates of ownership.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–281 struck out "of Transportation" after "Secretary" in introductory provisions.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1989, with certain exceptions and qualifications, see section 107 of Pub. L. 100–710, set out as a note under section 31301 of this title.
AUTHORIZATION

        Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints each of John M. Lowber, Bonnie J. Paskvan, and Alfred J. Walker,
signing singly, the undersigned's true and lawful attorney-in-fact to:

(1) execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned's capacity
as an affiliate of General Communication, Inc. (the "Company"), Form 4, in
accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
rules thereunder;

(2) do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which
may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 4, complete
and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file such form with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any stock exchange or
similar authority; and

(3) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to,
in the best interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being
understood that the documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the
undersigned pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall
contain such terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve in such
attorney-in-fact's discretion.

        The undersigned hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power
and authority to do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever
requisite, necessary, or proper to be done in the exercise of any of the rights
and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the
undersigned might or could do if personally present, with full power of
substitution or revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorney-in-fact, or such attorney-in-fact's substitute or substitutes, shall
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this power of attorney and the
rights and powers herein granted. The undersigned acknowledges that the
foregoing attorneys-in-fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the
undersigned, are not assuming, nor is the Company assuming, any of the
undersigned's responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

        This Power of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect until the
undersigned is no longer required to file Form 4, with respect to the
undersigned's holdings of and transactions in securities issued by the Company,
unless earlier revoked by the undersigned in a signed writing delivered to the
foregoing attorneys-in-fact.


                                   1
<PAGE>
        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to
be executed as of this 14th day of January 2003.


                                 /s/
                                 ------------------------
                                 Signature


                                 Paul E. Landes
                                 ------------------------
                                 Print Name
Exhibit 32.1



18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certification



In connection with the Annual Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the Company) 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, John H. Homier, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.



|             |  |                                                      
|------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|May 16, 2005 |  | /s/    JOHN H.
HOMIER                                
|             |  | John H. Homier, President and Chief Executive Officer
|            



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NGP Capital Resources Company and will be retained by NGP Capital Resources Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 972.206 Required initial assessments. ( a ) *General.* A PHA must conduct a required initial assessment (which consists of the certification described in paragraph (b) of this section), in accordance with this section, once for each of its developments, unless: ( 1 ) The development is subject to required conversion under 24 CFR part 971;
( 2 ) The development is the subject of an application for demolition or disposition that has not been disapproved by HUD;
( 3 ) A HOPE VI revitalization grant has been awarded for the development; or
( 4 ) The development is designated for occupancy by the elderly and/or persons with disabilities (*i.e.,* is not a general occupancy development).
( b ) *Certification procedure.* For each development, the PHA shall certify that it has: ( 1 ) Reviewed the development's operation as public housing;
( 2 ) Considered the implications of converting the public housing to tenant-based assistance; and
( 3 ) Concluded that conversion of the development may be: ( i ) Appropriate because removal of the development would meet the necessary conditions for voluntary conversion described in § 972.224; or
( ii ) Inappropriate because removal of the development would not meet the necessary conditions for voluntary conversion described § 972.224.
( c ) *Documentation.* A PHA must maintain documentation of the reasoning with respect to each required initial assessment.
( d ) *Timing of submission.* Consistent with statutory submission requirements, the results of each required initial assessment (consisting of the certification described in paragraph (b) of this section) must be submitted to HUD as part of the next PHA Annual Plan after its completion.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 79464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27139]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-53-2020]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 82--Mobile, Alabama Authorization of 
Production Activity; Aker Solutions, Inc. (Subsea Oil and Gas Systems), 
Mobile, Alabama

    On August 7, 2020, Aker Solutions, Inc., submitted a notification 
of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility 
within FTZ 82, in Mobile, Alabama.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (85 FR 50802, August 18, 2020). On 
December 7, 2020, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including Section 400.14.

    Dated: December 7, 2020.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27139 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
### §31112. Lien not recognized or created

This chapter shall not be construed as recognizing the existence of or as creating a lien against a public vessel of the United States.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §6(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1522.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 31112 | 46 App.:788. | Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 428, §8, 43 Stat. 1113. |

Section