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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130758 & (28) (33) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 130758 COA: 262516 Wayne CC: 98-013443-01 HUBERT MARTIN MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2006 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 re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motions to remand and to hol d in abeyance are DENIED.

s0724 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.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 32
 Certification of Principle Executive Officer and Principle Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: September 12, 2011
    
    /s/ Kevin J. Lynch

Kevin J. LynchChief Executive Officer and PresidentDate: September 12, 2011
    
    /s/ John M. Fields, Jr.

John M. Fields, Jr.Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 99.1.1

   Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Eugene R. McGrath, the Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison,
Inc. (the "Company") certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, which this statement
accompanies, (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

                                            /s/ Eugene R. McGrath
                                            Eugene R. McGrath


Dated: August 12, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29253]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4345-000]


OGE Energy Resources, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

October 31, 1997.
    OGE Energy Resources, Inc. (OGE Energy) filed an application for 
authorization to sell power at market-based rates, and for certain 
waivers and authorizations. In particular, OGE Energy requested that 
the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities by OGE 
Energy. On October 17, 1997, the Commission issued an Order 
Conditionally Accepting for Filing Proposed Market-Based Rates (Order), 
in the above-docketed proceeding.
    The Commission's October 17, 1997 Order granted the request for 
blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in 
Ordering Paragraphs (D), (E), and (G):
    (D) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring 
to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by OGE Energy 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.
    (E) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (D) above, OGE Energy is hereby authorized, pursuant 
to section 204 of the FPA, to issue securities and assume obligations 
or liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety or otherwise in respect 
of any security of another person; provided that such issue or 
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of 
OGE Energy, compatible with the public interest, and reasonably 
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    (G) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of OGE 
Energy's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities * * *.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is November 17, 1997.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29253 Filed 11-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit (a)(2)

**DWS STRATEGIC GOVERNMENT SECURITIES FUND**

 

Amended and Restated Establishment and Designation of Series and  

Classes of Shares of Beneficial Interest, Without Par Value  

 

WHEREAS, the Trustees of DWS Strategic Government Securities Fund (the “Trust”), acting pursuant to the Trust’s Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust (the “Declaration”), dated June 2, 2008, as amended, had previously established and designated one or more series of shares of beneficial interest in the Trust (each, a “Series” composed of “Shares”) pursuant to one or more designations of series (the “Prior Series Designations”) and had previously established and designated one or more classes of Shares (each, a “Class”) for some or all of the Series pursuant to one or more designations of classes (the “Prior Class Designations,” such Prior Series Designations and Prior Class Designations referred to herein collectively as the “Prior Designations”);

NOW THEREFORE, the Trustees of the Trust, effective upon filing, hereby amend and restate the Trust’s Prior Designations, the terms of which to supersede any terms set forth in the Prior Designations:

1.     The following Series of Shares and Classes thereof are established and designated, the Shares, without par value, of such Series and Classes to be subject to the terms of, and entitled to all the rights and preferences accorded to Shares of a Series, and, if applicable, a Class under, the Declaration and this restated designation:

 

|   | DWS Strategic Government Securities Fund | Class A |
|--------|------------------------------------------|---------|

|   | Class B |
|--------|---------|

|   | Class C |
|--------|---------|

|   | Class S |
|--------|---------|

|   | Institutional Class |
|--------|---------------------|

 

2.        For Shares of a Class of a Series, the relative rights and preferences of such Class shall be as determined by the Trustees of the Trust from time to time in accordance with the Declaration and set forth in the Trust’s Multi-Distribution System Plan adopted pursuant to Rule 18f-3 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, as such Plan may be amended from time to time, or as otherwise required by applicable law.  The Shares of a Class of a Series shall have such other terms, features and qualifications as may be determined by the Trustees of the Trust from time to time in accordance with the Declaration and set forth in the current prospectus and statement of additional information of the Series relating to such Class, contained in the Trust’s registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as suchprospectus or statement of additional information may be further supplemented from time to time. 

 

----
*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10034

Summary Calendar

 

LAWRENCE D. KENEMORE, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BAREFOOT SANDERS, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(94 CV 2227 R)

 

( August 31, 1995 )

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lawrence D. Kenemore, Jr., an habitual pro se litigant,

appeals the district court's dismissal of two related cases. We

affirm. 

In the first of the two dismissed cases, Kenemore sued Chief

Judge Barefoot Sanders and the United States of America,

challenging Chief Judge Sanders' denial of his motion to have
2

Magistrate Judge Jane Boyle recused. As the district court rightly

noted, "[j]udicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity from

damage claims arising out of acts performed in the exercise of

their judicial functions." Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 317 (5th

Cir. 1993). Further, sovereign immunity shields the United States

from Kenemore's suit, and Kenemore does not assert that any

congressional act waives that bar. Accordingly, we affirm this

portion of the judgment. 

In the second of the two actions at issue here, Kenemore sued

Magistrate Judge Jane Boyle for her decisions in an action to

enforce an administrative subpoena against him, and Assistant U.S.

Attorney Timothy Hauser for his prosecution of that case. We lack

jurisdiction to hear Kenemore's challenge to the order dismissing

this action because Kenemore filed his notice of appeal 61 days

after the order's entry. Kenemore had only 60 days within which to

file a notice of appeal in a case in which the United States, a

federal officer, or a federal agency is a party. Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1). Even if we had jurisdiction to consider Kenemore's

appeal, we would reject it on the merits. Magistrate Judge Boyle

is shielded by judicial immunity, and AUSA Hauser by prosecutorial

immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). 

Kenemore also objects that the court below dismissed his cases

without awaiting an answer by the defendants. The court may do so.

Kenemore lists the remainder of his points at the beginning of his
 

1 Kenemore contends that the district court was "practicing

law from the bench," failed to review his complaint to "see

specific U.S. Constitutional violations," and erred in "joining

together two cases that are totally un-related in the same

memorandum and order." 

3

appellate brief, but he fails to brief them.1 We will not consider

issues not briefed. See United States v. Heacock, 31 F.3d 249, 258

(5th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part and DISMISS in part.
Exhibit 13.1


PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with this Annual Report of Scorpio Tankers Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Emanuele Lauro, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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

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

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.


Date: March 31, 2015/s/ Emanuele LauroEmanuele LauroChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit      32**

| 1. | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006                (the                “Report”) of the Company to which this certification is an exhibit fully                complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities                Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or                78o(d)). |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                as of June 30, 2006 and for the period then                ended. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Thomas                F. Farrell, IIThomas                F. Farrell, IIPresident                and Chief Executive OfficerAugust                3, 2006 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Thomas                N. ChewningThomas                N. ChewningExecutive                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer August                3, 2006 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit
13.2

PRINCIPAL
FINCNIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with this Annual Report of Scorpio Tankers Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December
31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Brian Lee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the SEC or its staff upon request.

|                                                          | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: March
    23, 2012                                 
|                                                         
|/s/ Brian Lee                                             | 
|Brian
    Lee                                            
|Chief
    Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter SOMA

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance Redemptions

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6) (7)

Oct - Dec

2018 Actual 291 426 (117) 309 17 402 (91)

Jan - Mar

2019 Actual 375 374 (67) 306 (68) 334 (46)

Apr - Jun

2019 Actual 13 40 (97) (57) (70) 264 (67)

Jul - Sep

2019 Actual 281 440 (40) 400 119 382 (30)

Oct - Dec

2019 Actual 313 330 7 337 24 404 0

Jan - Mar

2020 Actual 365 477 (1) 476 111 515 0

Apr - Jun

2020 Actual 1,526 2,753 (20) 2,733 1207 1722 0

Jul - Sep

2020 Actual 401 454 7 461 60 1782 0

Oct - Dec

2020 Actual 648 597 (3) 595 (53) 1729 0

Jan - Mar

2021 Actual 1008 401 1 402 607 1122 0

Apr - Jun

2021 Actual 591 319 2 321 (270) 852 0

Jul - Sep

2021 Actual 751 103 11 115 (637) 215 0

Oct - Dec

2021 Actual 480 689 (18) 670 191 406 0

Jan - Mar

2022 Actual 423 668 1 669 245 652 0

Apr - Jun

2022 Actual (180) 7 (55) (49) 131 782 (30)

Jul - Sep

2022 Actual 453 457 (151) 307 (146) 636 (120)

Oct - Dec

2022 Actual 368 373 (194) 179 (189) 447 (139)

Jan - Mar

2023 Actual 656 657 (270) 387 (269) 178 (221)

Apr - Jun

2023 Actual 181 657 (251) 406 225 402 (180)

Jul - Sep July 31, 2023 521 1007 (238) 769 248 650 (158)

2023 Actual 520 1010 (235) 775 254 657 (158)

Forecast Revisions (1) 3 3 6 7 7 0

Oct - Dec July 31, 2023 487 852 (265) 587 100 750 (171)

2023 October 30, 2023 407 776 (276) 500 93 750 (171)

Forecast Revisions (80) (76) (11) (87) (7) 0 0

Jan - Mar

2024 October 30, 2023 548 816 (268) 548 0 750 (172)

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
#### Harry KAPLAN, Appellant, v. John STURM, Appellee.

No. 2607.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 18, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1970.

Larry Klein, of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, McKeown & Dell, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Harry K. Anderson, Jr., of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & D’Aiuto, Rockledge, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff charges that defense counsel in a negligence action made improper remarks during his closing argument and that the damages awarded plaintiff by the jury were legally inadequate. The only jury issue was that of damages and the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. We have examined the record and considered the briefs and arguments of counsel and conclude that no harmful or reversible error has been demonstrated.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

REED, J., dissents, without opinion.
#### Richard Allen BRANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1264.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Peter M. de Manió, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1, 2014 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR–2013-0602 FROM: Melanie King, Office of Ai r Quality Planning and Standards SUBJECT: November 18, 2014 Meeting and Tribal Consultation with Navajo Nation Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY A meeting was held between EPA and the atte ndee(s) listed below on November 18, 2014, to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan Supplementa l Proposal for Existing Power Plants in Indian Country and U.S. Territories. The Clean Power Pl an Supplemental Proposal was issued on October 28, 2014, and published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2014. ATTENDEES Navajo Nation  Martin Ashley, Navajo Nation O ffice of the Navajo Tax Commission  Ray Benally, Navajo Nation, Water Resources  Ben Shelly, President, Navajo Nation  Martha Shelly, Navajo Nation  Stephen B. Etsitty, Navajo Nation EPA  Jim Staudt, Andover Technology  Bidtah Becker, Navajo Nati on Department of Justice  Jill Grant, Jill Grant & Associates, Attorney for Navajo Nation  Greg Kelly, Frye Law Firm, Counsel to Navajo Transitional Energy Company  Toni Flora, Navajo Nati on Department of Justice  Eugenia Quintana, Navajo Nation EPA – Air & Toxics Department  Raju Bisht, Navajo Nation EPA – Air Quality  Anthony Peterman, Navajo Nation Office of the Speaker  April Quinn, Navajo Nation Department of Justice  Greg Jones, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority  Derek Dyson, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority/DWGP EPA  William Niebling, OAR  Greg Green, OAR/OAQPS  Laura McKelvey, OAR/OAQPS  Melanie King, OAR/OAQPS  Mary Johnson, OAR/OAQPS (by phone)  Amy Zimpfer, Region 9  Anita Lee, Region 9  Colleen McKaughan, Region 9
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7991

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAUL PHOTIADIS BOCCONE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00592-CMH-1; 1:15-cv-00887-CMH)

Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Photiadis Boccone, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory P. Bailey, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Ruxandra 

Barbulescu, Jonathan Persons Robell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Michael Phillip Ben’Ary, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Marc Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Photiadis Boccone seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Boccone 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
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000524

30-OCT-2018

08:52 AM