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

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136565 Michael F. Cavanagh 

& (18) Elizabeth A. Weaver

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

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

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136565 

 COA: 283552 

Ingham CC: 03-001110-FH

MATTHEW GENE KEMMER, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 14, 2008 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand for 

resentencing is DENIED. 

0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
4000

4000

4000

4000

4050

Columbus

Municipal

Airport

9

9

9

9

9

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 5 C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 5

B L A C K H IL L R D B L A C K H IL L R D

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 3

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 3 C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 3

D U S T D E V IL R D D U S T D E V IL R D

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 3

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 3

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 6 C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 6

9

9

9

9

9

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 5 C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 5

B L A C K H IL L R D B L A C K H IL L R D

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 3

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 3 C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 3

D U S T D E V IL R D D U S T D E V IL R D

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 3

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 3

C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 6 C O U N T Y R D -B 0 0 6

Stiles Reservoir

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

Seventysix

Draw

Black

Hill

O'Bryan

Windmill

Little

Windmill

Mesquite

Lake

Columbus

SE

Columbus

NE

Columbus Coyote

Hill

North

Peak

30"

55 61

30"

310

47'

35

35

26

2

35

54

000 FEET

107°

31°

000

59 31°

FEET

29

2 62

17

2

30"

2

30"

32'

FEET

260

37'

35'

N

56

35

35

2

35

28

47'

2

107°

000m

E 52'

45'

50'

820

2

24

22

60 2

35

35

18

57

21

2 56

35' 30'

107°

31°

2 2

000 FEET 31°

30"

35

35

3523

26

17

2

16

55

57

30'

2

790

54

37'

2

107°

2

23

3522

35

27

28

2

35

35

N

35

35

35

52'

280

000

30"

2 63

2

19

35

20

19

29

000m

2

35

61

000m

24

2

35

2

E

50'

30" 000m

45'

53 58 30"

32'

58 59

35

35

16

21

53

25

35

35

27

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

NEW MEXICO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

COLUMBUS SE, NM-CHH

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

COLUMBUS SE QUADRANGLE

NEW MEXICO-CHIHUAHUA

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 13R

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: New Mexico Coordinate System of 1983

(west zone)

Imagery...............................NAIP, January 2005 - May 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2005

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2001

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 21 ́

24 MILS

9° 22 ́

167 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

13R

BR

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Six Months EndedJune 30, 2009
    
    
    Twelve Months Ended December 312008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004(Millions of Dollars)Earnings:Pretax earnings
    
    $
    258
    
    
    $
    517
    
    
    $
    466
    
    
    $
    482
    
    
    $
    426
    
    
    $
    214Fixed charges
    
    
    172
    
    
    
    324
    
    
    
    319
    
    
    
    299
    
    
    
    280
    
    
    
    294Net earnings
    
    
    430
    
    
    $
    841
    
    
    $
    785
    
    
    $
    781
    
    
    $
    706
    
    
    $
    508Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    163
    
    
    $
    293
    
    
    $
    294
    
    
    $
    278
    
    
    $
    267
    
    
    $
    280Adjustments
    
    
    9
    
    
    
    31
    
    
    
    25
    
    
    
    21
    
    
    
    13
    
    
    
    14Fixed charges
    
    $
    172
    
    
    $
    324
    
    
    $
    319
    
    
    $
    299
    
    
    $
    280
    
    
    $
    294Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.50
    
    
    
    2.60
    
    
    
    2.46
    
    
    
    2.61
    
    
    
    2.52
    
    
    
    1.73
§ 723.12 When penalty will be assessed. ( a ) The Office shall assess a penalty for each cessation order.
( b ) The Office shall assess a penalty for each notice of violation, if the violation is assigned 31 points or more under the point system described in § 723.13.
( c ) The Office may assess a penalty for each notice of violation assigned 30 points or less under the point system described in § 723.13. In determining whether to assess a penalty, the Office shall consider the factors listed in § 723.13(b).
NGS - MATS Hg Control

Haul Road Emission Calculations

Unpaved Road Emissions

(lb/hr)3 (tons/yr)4 

TR Powder Activated Carbon Deliveries 72 1.5 20 1.5 30 2.81 0.73 0.07 4.22 0.0 TR Calcium Bromide Deliveries 33 1.0 365 1.0 365 1.98 0.51 0.05 1.98 0.4 

Total 6.20 0.40 

1) Assume average half full.2) Emission factors based on AP-42, Section 13.2.2 (11/06) - Fugitive Dust From Vehicles Traveling on Unpaved Roads

EPM (lb/VMT) = k(s/12)a(W/3)b(100%-CE), where k=4.9, a=0.7, b=0.45

EPM10 (lb/VMT) = k(s/12)a(W/3)b(100%-CE), where k=1.5, a=0.9, b=0.45

EPM2.5 (lb/VMT) = k(s/12)a(W/3)b(100%-CE), where k=0.15, a=0.9, b=0.45

s = surface material silt content (%) = 5.1 (from Table 13.2.2-1)

W = mean vehicle weight (tons)

CE = control efficiency from road watering (75% from Figure 13.2.2-2 assuming a moisture ratio of 2)

3) PM/PM10/PM2.5 Potential to Emit (lb/hr) = Max Vehicle Miles Traveled per hour (VMT/hr) x PM/PM 10/PM2.5 Emission Factor (lb/VMT)

4) PM/PM10/PM2.5 Potential to Emit (tons/yr) = Total Vehicle Miles Traveled per Year (VMT/yr) x PM/PM10/PM2.5 Emission Factor (lb/VMT) x (1 ton / 2,000 lbs)

Total 

VMT/Year

PM Emission 

Factor 

(lb/VMT)2

PM10 

Emission 

Factor 

(lb/VMT)2

PM2.5 

Emission 

Factor 

(lb/VMT)2

PM Emissions 

Emission Unit ID Unit Description Max VMT/hr

Weight per 

Vehicle 

(tons)1

VMT/Round 

Trip

Total 

Annual 

Deliveries
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the reference to our firm under "Item 6. Selected Financial Data"
and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8
No. 33-17642, Form S-8 No. 33-45131, Form S-8 No. 33-45132, Form S-8 No.
33-62863, Form S-8 No. 33-64860, Form S-8 No. 33-72494, Form S-8 No. 33-77586,
Form S-8 No. 33-77590, Form S-8 No. 333-74873, Form S-8 No. 333-68103, Form S-3
No. 33-85898, Form S-4 No. 333-79839 and Form S-8 333-89127) of
InterVoice-Brite, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated April 3, 2001, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
InterVoice-Brite, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended February 28, 2001.


                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 15, 2001
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-20831

Summary Calendar

IN THE MATTER OF: PM RESTAURANT GROUP INC., 

Debtor.

MARK A. CANTU,

Appellant,

VERSUS

MSW GROUP LLC; FORREST SPARKS, JR.;

TOMMY WILSON; STEPHEN F. MCLAUGHLIN,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-1441)

February 25, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark A. Cantu appeals from a judgment of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Texas which affirmed

the judgment of the bankruptcy court that (1) Cantu was in contempt

of the unambiguous Confirmation and Order of a Plan confirmed by

the bankruptcy court; (2) Cantu was liable for compensatory damages

and contingent and conditional punitive damages for his civil
2

contempt; and (3) Cantu was not entitled to an award of unpaid rent

and taxes claimed to be owed by the debtor in the bankruptcy

proceeding. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply

brief, the appendix to appellees’ brief, and relevant portions of

the record itself. For the reasons stated by the bankruptcy judge

in his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed under date of

February 26, 1997, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court to

affirm the judgment of the bankruptcy court.
Exhibit 32.1

                  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly Report of Comtech Group, Inc. f/k/a Trident
Rowan Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Kang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Jeffrey Kang
----------------------------------------------
Name:  Jeffrey Kang
Title: Chief Executive Officer
August 20, 2004
#### §§ 401.20-401.25 [Reserved]
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   Exhibit 11
                             DETECTION SYSTEMS, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)

   Three Months Ended December 31,                          1999          1998
                                                            ----          ----
<S>                                                       <C>              <C>
   Net income                                             $1,155        $1,231
                                                          ======        ======
   Weighted average number of shares                       6,269         6,328
                                                          ======        ======
   Basic earnings per share                               $ 0.18        $ 0.19
                                                          ======        ======
   Shares attributable to deferred
    compensation plans and stock
    options and warrants                                     489           504
                                                          ======        ======
   Diluted earnings per share:                            $ 0.17        $ 0.18
                                                          ======        ======


   Nine Months Ended December 31,                           1999          1998
                                                          ------        ------

   Net income                                             $4,077        $3,293
                                                          ======        ======
   Weighted average number of shares                       6,346         6,313
                                                          ======        ======
   Basic earnings per share                                 0.64        $ 0.52
                                                          ======        ======
   Shares attributable to deferred
    compensation plans and stock
    options and warrants                                     473           513
                                                          ======        ======
   Diluted earnings per share:                            $ 0.60        $ 0.48
                                                          ======        ======
</TABLE>
#### § 44.15 Referral to Chief Administrative Law Judge.

Upon receipt of a request for hearing as provided in § 44.14 of this part, the Administrator shall, within 5 days, refer to the Chief Administrative Law Judge the original petition, the proposed decision and order, all information upon which the proposed decision was based, any written request for a hearing on the petition filed, any other written comments or information received and considered in making the proposed decision. The MSHA investigation report shall be made part of the record on the petition.

[55 FR 53441, Dec. 28, 1990]
§ 585.658 Can my cable or pipeline construction deviate from my approved COP or GAP? ( a ) You must make every effort to ensure that all cables and pipelines are constructed in a manner that minimizes deviations from the approved plan under your lease or grant.
( b ) If BOEM determines that a significant change in conditions has occurred that would necessitate an adjustment to your ROW, RUE, or lease before the commencement of construction of the cable or pipeline on the grant or lease, BOEM will consider modifications to your ROW grant, RUE grant, or your lease addendum for a project easement in connection with your COP or GAP.
( c ) If, after construction, it is determined that a deviation from the approved plan has occurred, you must: ( 1 ) Notify the operators of all leases (including mineral leases issued under this subchapter) and holders of all ROW grants or RUE grants (including all grants issued under this subchapter) which include the area where a deviation has occurred and provide BOEM with evidence of such notification;
( 2 ) Relinquish any unused portion of your lease or grant; and
( 3 ) Submit a revised plan for BOEM approval as necessary.
( d ) Construction of a cable or pipeline that substantially deviates from the approved plan may be grounds for cancellation of the lease or grant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1289

CHRISTINA D. PERRY-BEY, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:08-cv-00100-MSD-JEB) 

Submitted: September 17, 2009 Decided: October 14, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Christina D. Perry-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Wilbur Jacobs, 

II, CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, Melvin Wayne 

Ringer, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Christina D. Perry-Bey seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing her complaint without prejudice. This 

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order 

Perry-Bey seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar 

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th 

Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7388

ERIC DAVID JETER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS MCFADDEN, Investigator; JUDGE WHITE,

Magistrate, Florence, South Carolina; FLORENCE

COUNTY SHERIFFS’ DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-05-1703-GRA)

Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: January 20, 2006

Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric David Jeter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Eric David Jeter appeals the district court’s order

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

his civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) without prejudice.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Jeter v. McFadden, No. CA-05-1703-GRA (D.S.C. Aug. 12, 2005). We

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.

AFFIRMED
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 Dionics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, 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.







Dated:   August 12, 2008

By:

/s/ Bernard Kravitz

Bernard Kravitz,

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)





Dated:   August 12, 2008

By:

/s/ Bernard Kravitz

Bernard Kravitz,

Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 12



      John Deere Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries
     Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                 (thousands of dollars)

                                   Six Months Ended April 30,
                                 ------------------------------
                                     1999              1998
                                 -----------        -----------
Earnings:

Income before income
  taxes and changes
  in accounting                     $112,558            $98,064

Fixed charges                        180,842            181,540
                                 -----------         ----------
  Total earnings                    $293,400           $279,604
                                 ===========         ==========

Fixed charges:

Interest expense                    $178,363           $179,408

Rent expense                           2,479              2,132
                                 -----------         ----------
  Total fixed
    charges                         $180,842           $181,540
                                 ===========         ==========

Ratio of earnings to
   fixed charges *                      1.62               1.54
                                 ===========         ==========


                           For the Years Ended October 31,
                    -------------------------------------------
                      1998     1997     1996     1995     1994
                    -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Earnings:

Income before income
  taxes and changes
  in accounting     $233,534 $211,251 $206,588 $175,360 $161,809

Fixed charges        373,237  330,648  276,726  240,913  168,507
                    -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  Total earnings    $606,771 $541,899 $483,314 $416,273 $330,316
                    ======== ======== ======== ======== ========

Fixed charges:

Interest expense    $368,381 $326,867 $273,748 $238,445 $166,591

Rent expense           4,856    3,782    2,978    2,468    1,916
                    -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  Total fixed
    charges         $373,236 $330,648 $276,726 $240,913 $168,507
                    ======== ======== ======== ======== ========

Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges *       1.63     1.64     1.75     1.73     1.96
                    ======== ======== ======== ======== ========
_______
"Earnings" consist of income before income taxes, the cumulative
effect of changes in accounting and fixed charges. "Fixed
charges" consist of interest on indebtedness, amortization of
debt discount and expense, an estimated amount of rental expense
under capitalized leases which is deemed to be representative of
the interest factor and rental expense under operating leases.

* The Company has not issued preferred stock. Therefore, the
  ratios of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred
  stock dividends are the same as the ratios presented above.


Page 16
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 11, 2016.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00452

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M .S., JR., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 09

- 15359



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and Lang

Opinion by Justice Lang
Before the Court is appellant’s motion to withdraw its notice of restricte d appeal and

dismiss the appeal. Appellant has informed the Court that it no longe r wishes to pursue the

appeal because the trial court has set aside the order to be appealed. Accordingly, we grant

appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

160452F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/
DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF M.S., JR., A CHILD

No. 05

- 16

- 00452

- CV On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 09

- 15359. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Bridges participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 11th day of May, 2016.