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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 December 22, 2015

s1214

Order 

Clerk

December 22, 2015

151015

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151015

COA: 325014

Oakland CC: 2004-199567-FC

JOHNNY DAR EAGLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
#### Ellen E. Anderson, Plaintiff, v. Aaron S. Robbins, Defendant.

Appeal withdrawn.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Harry F. Crooks *v.*H. O. Sweet and others, *Referees,*etc.—

Order reversed, without costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
§ 551.48 May an official of a foreign manufacturer serve as its agent? ( a ) Generally no; an agent must be a permanent resident of the United States. Typically officials of foreign manufacturers and importers are not United States residents.
( b ) Occasionally an official of a foreign manufacturer also serves as an official of a domestic firm or corporation or is a permanent resident of the United States. In such cases, the official may serve as agent and sign the designation documents both on behalf of the foreign manufacturer and as agent. However, the foreign manufacturer must submit to NHTSA, along with the designation documents, a letter explaining that the individual signing the designation is both an official of the foreign manufacturer with authority to appoint an agent and a permanent resident of the United States or official of a domestic firm or corporation. If NHTSA does not receive an explanatory letter at the same time it receives the designation, the agency will deem the designation insufficient under this subpart and reject the submission.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: June 22, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Howard J. Hoffman, EPA - OGC

SUBJECT: June 22, 2015 Phone Call with EDF Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

On June 22, 2015, Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) called to discuss

legal issues concerning the proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants.
----

**EXHIBIT      32.3**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of § 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                March 1, 2007 | By:    | /s/Jeffry                E. Sterba                  |
|------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   | Jeffry                E. Sterba                     |
|                               |   | Chairman,                President and              |
|                               |   | Chief                Executive Officer              |
|                               |   | Public                Service Company of New Mexico |
###### Editorial Note on Part 801

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 801 appear at 86 FR 54641, Oct. 4, 2021.

#### § 801.59 Geological records.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(9), records concerning geological wells are exempt from public disclosure.
CERTIFICATION                                                      Exhibit 31.1

I, Martin A. Roenigk, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CompuDyne Corporation;

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

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

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

         (a) Designed such disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure that  material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and  procedures  and  presented  in  this  report  our  conclusions   about  the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the  registrant's  internal
control over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially  affected,  or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's   auditors  and  the  audit  committee  of  registrant's  board  of
directors;

         (a) All significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial  reporting which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

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

         Date:  March 31, 2005
                                                     /s/ Martin Roenigk
                                                     -------------------
                                                     Martin Roenigk
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
H. Res. 112

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 1, 2001.

Whereas the 4-H Youth Development Program celebrates its

100th anniversary in 2002;

Whereas the 4-H Youth Development program sponsors clubs

in rural and urban areas throughout the world;

Whereas the 4-H Clubs have grown to over 5.6 million annual participants ranging from 5 to 19 years of age;

Whereas today’s 4-H Clubs are very diverse, offering agricultural, career development, information technology, and

general life skills programs; and

Whereas the 4-H Youth Development Program continues to

make great contributions toward the development of wellrounded youth: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes

the upcoming 100th anniversary of the 4-H Youth Development Program and commends such program for service to

the youth of the world.

Attest:

Clerk.
H. Res. 322

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

December 20, 2001.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House a joint resolution

appointing the day for the convening of the second session of

the One Hundred Seventh Congress. The joint resolution

shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one

hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Majority

Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
119 STAT. 2542 PUBLIC LAW 109–123—DEC. 1, 2005

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2183:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):

July 13, considered and passed House.

Nov. 18, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–123

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 567 Tompkins

Avenue in Staten Island, New York, as the ‘‘Vincent Palladino Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

567 Tompkins Avenue in Staten Island, New York, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Vincent Palladino Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Vincent

Palladino Post Office’’.

Approved December 1, 2005.

Dec. 1, 2005

[H.R. 2183]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Balance Sheet and
Statement of Operations filed as a part of the report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended January 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          80,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  295,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,474
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               391,707
<PP&E>                                         261,570
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,180
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 671,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          366,821
<BONDS>                                      1,500,559
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,961
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,178,076)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   671,343
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               326,399
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (178,801)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (197,465)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (485,434)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (485,434)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 633.15 Access to information.

A recipient for a major capital project shall provide the Administrator and the project management oversight contractor chosen under this part access to its records and construction sites, as reasonably may be required.
### OPINION ON REHEARING UNPUBLISHED 

# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  J EFFREY D WAYNE R OGERS ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 00-7823



#  M ARTIN M C D ADE , Superintendent; N ORTH C AROLINA D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTION , Respondents-Appellees. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.

(CA-96-15-4-MU) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: April 3, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Jeffrey Dwayne Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Dwayne Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Respondents and denying his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (West 1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We grant Respondents’ petition for rehearing but deny rehearing en banc. Upon our review, we find insufficient evidence that the State’s factfinding was deficient in some significant respect. See Fitzgerald v. Greene , 150 F.3d 357, 369 (4thCir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm based on the reasoning of the district court. Rogers v. McDade , No. CA-96-15-4-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 27, 2000; entered Nov. 30, 2000); see North Carolina v. Rogers , File No. 93 CRS 7128, 7129 (Sup. Ct. Wilkes County June 12, 1995).We note that the district court granted Rogers’ request for a certificate of appealability. However, such a certificate is not necessary because this § 2254 petition was filed prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997); Mueller v. Angelone , 181 F.3d 557, 565-66, (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1065 (1999). To the extent it is necessary, we grant a certificate of probable cause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (1994). 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 2 R OGERS v. M C D ADE
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


























Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350


(Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
      31, 2007, of Britton & Koontz Capital Corporation (the “Company”), as filed
      with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly
      Report”), I, W. Page Ogden, 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:







(1)
            the
                Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
                all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                the Company.




















Date:
      May
      15, 2007      /s/
      W. Page
      Ogden


W.
      Page
      Ogden


Chief
      Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Matthew Urban, Appellant.

Judgment and conviction reversed, and defendant discharged. Opinion by Landon, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6302

In Re: MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(5:02-cv-01254)

Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 20, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Allen Kokoski, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Allen Kokoski petitions for a writ of mandamus

seeking a review of the district court’s actions in his case. We

conclude Kokoski is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United

Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

The relief sought by Kokoski is not available by way of

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### Stephen R. Ryan, as Assignee, etc., v. J. Nelson Webb and another.

Motion granted and leave given to execute and serve au undertaking within ten days, upon payment of ten dollars costs of opposing the motion.
<PAGE>

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference (i) in the Registration
Statement dated February 25, 1993 (Form S-8 No. 33-58726) pertaining to The
Coleman Company, Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan and in the Related Prospectus,
(ii) in the Registration Statement dated January 18, 1994 (Form S-8
No. 33-74144) pertaining to The Coleman Company, Inc. 1993 Stock Option Plan
and in the related Prospectus, and (iii) in the Registration Statement dated
May 12, 1997 (Form S-8 No. 333-26907) pertaining to The Coleman Company, Inc.
1996 Stock Option Plan and in the related Prospectus, of our report dated
April 15, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The
Coleman Company, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the
year ended December 31, 1998.


                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Kansas City, Missouri
November 4, 1999
----

----

| S&A      Purchasing Corp.: _______________________By:Name:Title: |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| S&A      Supply, Inc.   By:      _____________   Name:      _____________   Title:   _____________ | S&A      Realty, Inc.   By:      _____________   Name:      _____________   Title:   _____________ | S&A      Management, Inc.   By:      _____________   Name:      _____________   Title:   _____________  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  _______________Nancy      Mead | The      Discretionary Trust under The Rodney P. Mead Revocable Trust, dated      January 12,1999 By:      _____________________Nancy      A. Mead, Trustee By:  ____________________Thomas      H. Mead, Trustee  |  _______________Adam      Mead                                                                                                  |
|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  _______________Sarah      Mead |  _______________Brian      Mead                                                                                                                                                                                                   | Escrow      Agent Martinelli      Discenza P.C. By:__________________     Gary      E. Martinelli |

----
Hillsborough,

June, 1896.

#### Gage *& a. v.*DeCourcey & *a.*

A creditor is bound by his mutual agreement with other creditors for the discharge of their respective claims upon the payment of less than the sums due, although other claims against the debtor have been paid in full with knowledge of all the creditors.

Assumpsit, for the balance of an account remaining after the payment of fifty per cent in compliance with an agreement entered into by the plaintiffs with the defendants and mutually with the defendants’ other creditors, by which the creditors agreed to accept fifty per cent in discharge of their respective claims. Facts found by the court. Before signing the agreement, the plaintiffs insisted upon payment in full for three orders of goods recently purchased by the defendants, on the ground that the goods were obtained with a view to failure. Similar payments were made to others. All the creditors knew of these payments. The court ordered a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiffs excepted.

*AJpheus C. Osgood,*for the plaintiffs.

*Demid A. Taggart,*for the defendants.

Pike, J.

The plaintiffs were bound by their contract. The agreement of the other creditors to accept fifty per cent of their claims was a sufficient consideration for the plaintiffs’ like agreement. *Trumball*v. *Tilton,*21 N. H. 128, 143; *Allen*v. *Cheever,*61 N. H. 32. The prior payments in full were made with the knowledge of all the creditors; and the general finding for the defendants shows that they were not made in fraud of the agreement.

*Exception overruled.*

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.