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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132817 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132817 

 COA: 265141 

Wayne CC: 05-004400-01

JONATHON SAMUEL MITCHELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 14, 2006 

judgment 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. 

p0319 

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. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
# C_2006011EN.01001102.xml

| 17.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3982 — Technip/Subsea 7/Asia Pacific JV)

(2006/C 11/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 19 December 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3982. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3982. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PEONTE SHAMAR SPENCER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cr-00012-HEH-1; 3:20-cv00471-HEH)

Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 26, 2023

Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peonte Shamar Spencer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6157 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Peonte Shamar Spencer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spencer has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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 process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6157 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0156 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-CE-001-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
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 Capital Gold Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Colin Sutherland, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Colin SutherlandColin SutherlandPresident(Principal Executive Officer)March 14, 2011
Editorial Note on Subpart R of Part 405
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart R of part 405 appear at 79 FR 55031, Aug. 22, 2014.

§ 405.1843 Parties to proceedings in a Board appeal. ( a ) ( 1 ) When a provider files a request for a hearing before the Board in accordance with § 405.1835 or § 405.1837, the parties to all proceedings in the Board appeal include the provider, a contractor, and, where applicable, any other entity found by the Board to be a related organization of the provider under the principles enunciated in § 413.17 of this chapter.
( 2 ) All parties to a Board appeal are to familiarize themselves with the instructions for handling a Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB) appeal, including any and all requirements related to the electronic/online filing of documents.
( b ) Neither the Secretary nor CMS may be made a party to proceedings in a Board appeal. ( 1 ) The Board may call as a witness any employee or officer of the Department of Health and Human Services or CMS having personal knowledge of the facts and the issues in controversy in an appeal.
( 2 ) The regulations at 45 CFR Part 2 (Testimony by employees and production of documents in proceedings where the United States is not a party) apply as to whether such employee or officer will appear.
( c ) A contractor may designate a representative from the Secretary or CMS, who may be an attorney, to represent the contractor in proceedings before the Board.
( d ) Although CMS is not a party to proceedings in a Board appeal, there may be instances where CMS determines that the administrative policy implications of a case are substantial enough to warrant comment from CMS (as described in § 405.1863 of this subpart). CMS— ( 1 ) May file *amicus curiae* (friend of the court) briefing papers with the Board in accordance with a schedule to be determined by the Board.
( 2 ) Must promptly send copies of any documents filed with the Board to each party to the appeal.
( e ) A nonparty other than CMS may seek leave from the Board to file *amicus curiae* briefing papers with the Board.
( f ) The Board may exclude from the record all or part of an amicus curiae briefing paper. When the Board excludes from the record all or part of an amicus curiae briefing paper submitted by CMS, it states for the record its reason(s) in writing.
[73 FR 30256, May 23, 2008, as amended at 85 FR 59019, Sept. 18, 2020]
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE

TO THE 124TH DISTRIC T COURT OF GREGG COU NTY, GREETINGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 10th day of April, A.D. 2018, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined;
and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Troy Michael Robino, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 17

- 00172

- CR

Trial Court No. 45773

- B

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, Troy Michael Robino, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Co urt of Appeals, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 6th day of June , A.D. 2018

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
c:\documents and settings\tvanjani\my documents\bart\bart protocols & reports\interstate paper\ga-intpaper-4km-28aug2006.doc 

INTERSTATE PAPER, LLC 

Georgia 

Visibility Results for 2001-2003 CALPUFF Screening Runs 

CALPOST, Method 6 

Using annual average Haze Index (HI) values in processing 

Table 1. Stack parameters and emissions 

Lambert Conformal 

Stack Coordinates 

ID # LCC East LCC North 

Stack 

Height 

Base 

Elevation Diameter Gas Exit Velocity 

Stack 

Gas 

Exit 

Temp. 

SO2

Emissions 

SO4

Emissions 

NOx

Emissions 

PM

Emis

 km km m m m m/s K g/s g/s g/s g/

PB 1470.712 -789.031 46.04 4.30 1.98 15.45 470.92 60.5000 0.0000 8.7000 3.40

LK 1470.714 -788.897 15.24 3.60 1.52 4.96 342.09 0.1600 0.0000 2.2000 0.74

RB 1470.714 -789.026 46.04 4.20 2.74 13.73 353.37 0.1200 0.0000 8.8000 5.50

Table 2. Particle Speciation 

particle speciation Condensable Filterable Stack ID 

# filterable 

PM10

condensa

ble PM10

organic 

condensable (OC) 

inorganic 

condensable COARSE Soil 

 % % 

0.625-

1.0 

μm 

(g/s) 

0.5-

0.625 

μm 

(g/s) 

0.625-

1.0 

μm 

(g/s) 

0.5-

0.625 

μm 

(g/s) 

6-10 

μm 

(g/s) 

2.5-6 

μm 

(g/s) 

1.25-

2.5 

μm 

(g/s) 

1.0-

1.25 

μm 

(g/s) 

0.625-

1.0 

μm 

(g/s) 

0.5-

0.625 

μm 

(g/s) 

1.

2

μ

(g

PB 1.7000 1.7000 

LK 0.3700 0.3700 RB 2.7500 2.7500 

Note: Stack parameters and emission data obtained from “EPD BART Emissions.xls” file. The PM speciation was not provided by the state. All PM10 - H2S

between the two size categories of OC. This is a conservative approach since, Organic condensable have extinction efficiency of 4 m2/g. 
c:\documents and settings\tvanjani\my documents\bart\bart protocols & reports\interstate paper\ga-intpaper-4km-28aug2006.doc 

Table 3. Summary of Visibility Results 

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 

Annual 

average 

background 

bext

Maximum delta-deciview, (# days>0.5 dv, # days >1 dv) (Mm-1) 

Cape Romain 0.330 (0 0) 0.408 (0 0) 0.242 (0 0) 21.22 

Okefenokee 0.670 (4 0) 0.561 (3 0) 1.153 (4 1) 21.41 

St Marks 0.192 (0 0) 0.196 (0 0) 0.247 (0 0) 21.54 

Wolf Island 1.653 (8 1) 0.963 (12 0) 0.938 (10 0) 21.33 

Table 4. Visibility Results – 8 highest values 

2001 2002 2003 

Change in 

Deciview (dv) Day Change in Deciview (dv) Day Change in Deciview (dv) Day 

Okefenokee 

0.670 0.579 0.520 0.514 0.431 0.431 0.431 0.318 

Feb 13 

Nov 19 

Oct 22 

Dec 4 

Jun 20 

Feb 12 

Jan 14 

Oct 23 

0.561 0.516 0.500 0.462 0.461 0.456 0.401 0.338 

Dec 8 

Oct 22 

Jan 27 

Oct 25 

Dec 18 

Jan 26 

Oct 14 

Feb 3 

1.153 0.630 0.523 0.500 0.391 0.341 0.336 0.328 

Jan 31 

Dec 27 

Nov 8 

Sep 10 

Nov 21 

Oct 31 

Jan 28 

Nov 11 

Wolf Island 

1.653 0.851 0.759 0.755 0.675 0.665 0.584 0.573 

Jan 15 

Sep 17 

Jan 10 

Feb 6 

Jan 21 

Sep 9 

Sep 18 

Dec 21 

0.963 0.962 0.943 0.823 0.751 0.731 0.691 0.650 

Jan 28 

Dec 27 

Nov 26 

Sep 17 

Nov 1 

Dec 30 

Jan 16 

Oct 26 

0.938 0.763 0.760 0.707 0.630 0.609 0.574 0.565 

Dec 8 

Sep 7 Sep 8 

Jul 15 

Nov 22 

Oct 15 

Oct 4 

Nov 7
# C_2006144EN.01001501.xml

| 20.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/15

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4217 — Providence/Carlyle/UPC Sweden)

(2006/C 144/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 2 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4217. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4217. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











I,
Chandler Bigelow, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Tribune Company, certify that (i) Tribune Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 30, 2008 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of
Tribune Company.














By:
              /s/ Chandler
      BigelowChandler
      Bigelow
                Senior
      Vice President and
                Chief
      Financial OfficerMay
      8, 2008
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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 20, 2017

d0919

Order 

Clerk

September 20, 2017

156280

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 156280

COA: 339228

Jackson CC: 16-004958-FC

TRACEY LEE LAWRENCE,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2017 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. We further ORDER that trial court proceedings are 

stayed pending the completion of this appeal. On motion of a party or on its own motion, 

the Court of Appeals may modify, set aside, or place conditions on the stay if it appears 

that the appeal is not being vigorously prosecuted or if other appropriate grounds appear.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Elections in Gabon

# 									Elections in Gabon							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

August 25, 2023

As Gabonese prepare to head to the polls tomorrow, the United States encourages the Gabonese people to exercise their right to vote and make their voices heard.  Elections are a fundamental part of a functioning democracy, and all Gabonese deserve this chance to choose their future without fear of repression or intimidation.  We affirm the importance of election observation and call on all actors to commit to free, fair, and peaceful elections.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsElectionsGabonOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
# C_2006126EN.01001001.xml

| 30.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4092 — Andritz/Küsters)

(2006/C 126/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 19 April 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4092. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4092. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### § 137.190 Is a Self-Governance Tribe that receives funds under Title V also entitled to contract under section 102 of the Act [25 U.S.C. 450(f)] for such funds?

For the period for which, and to the extent to which, funding is provided under the compact or funding agreement, the Self-Governance Tribe is not entitled to contract with the Secretary for the same funds or PSFA under section 102 of the Act [25 U.S.C. 450f]. Such Self-Governance Tribe is eligible for new programs on the same basis as other Indian Tribes.
# C_2006113EN.01000101.xml

| 13.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 May 2006

(2006/C 113/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2914 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,56 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4554 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68080 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3700 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5496 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 91,23 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7645 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5751 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,263 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 265,03 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8768 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4844 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,65 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,573 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8130 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6609 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4214 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0130 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0525 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0183 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 204,36 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9796 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3418 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2680 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 280,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,624 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,740 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,7650 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,861 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2914

JPY

Japanese yen

141,56

DKK

Danish krone

7,4554

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68080

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3700

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5496

ISK

Iceland króna

91,23

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7645

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5751

CZK

Czech koruna

28,263

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

265,03

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8768

RON

Romanian leu

3,4844

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,65

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,573

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8130

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6609

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4214

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0130

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0525

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0183

KRW

South Korean won

1 204,36

ZAR

South African rand

7,9796

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3418

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2680

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 280,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,624

PHP

Philippine peso

66,740

RUB

Russian rouble

34,7650

THB

Thai baht

48,861

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---