alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|           |   |   |   |                                      |                                  |
|----------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|           |   |   |   | NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. |
|           |   |   |   |                                      |                                  |
|           |   |   |   | By:                                       | /s/ Danny D. Simmons                  |
|           |   |   |   |                                      | Danny D. Simmons, P.E.                |
|           |   |   |   |                                      | President and Chief Operating Officer |
| Houston, Texas |   |   |   |                                      |                                  |
| March 11, 2011 |   |   |   |                                      |                                  |
#### R. L. WILLIAMS and Irma Bowen Williams, his wife, Appellants, v. Leroy Edwin GROOVER, Appellee. Richard L. WILLIAMS and Irma B. Williams, Appellants, v. John BLOODSWORTH, Appellee.

Nos. 69-768, 69-769.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 6, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1971.

Fred M. Peed of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, Orlando, for appellants.

Fred D. Leone, Sanford, for appellee Groover.

Chandler R. Muller of Mairs, Graham & Markel, Winter Park, for appellee Bloods-worth.

WALDEN, Judge.

This was a negligence suit where the trial court refused, upon request, to charge the jury as concerns F.S.1967, section 186.-0177, F.S.A., which is entitled *“Driving while under the influence of liquor or drug.”*The record reveals substantial competent evidence of a large consumption of alcoholic beverages by the operator of the motorcycle, the plaintiff, Groover, just prior to the collision in question. When the inferences arising from such consumption are coupled with the evidence of his conduct just before, during and after the collision, a jury question was presented and it was error for the trial court to refuse to charge on the mentioned statute. We reverse on authority of Selzer v. Grine, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 688, wherein it was stated,

> “Whether or not a person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to the extent that his or her normal faculties are *475impaired is a question of fact and should be determined by the jury when there is substantial evidence submitted on that question.”

We have read LeFevre v. Bear, Fla.App. 1959, 113 So.2d 390, which was relied upon by the trial court. According to our understanding, it may be distinguished on the premise that there jury instructions were not involved and that court deemed the testimony as to intoxicants to be irrelevant and immaterial to the issues. See Meehan v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 476. Regardless, we are persuaded that the views expressed in Selzer v. Grine, supra, represent a preferable and correct exposition of the law of this state. ■

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial consistent with the views here expressed.

Reversed and remanded.

REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
#### Michael HUTCHISON et al., Petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, etc., Respondent.

No. 43302.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 270 So.2d 25.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

ATTACHMENT A

Case 3:15-cv-03002-G Document 5-2 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID 31
Page 2 of 2

Attachment A

12 C.F.R. § 1022.42. Reasonable policies and procedures concerning the accuracy and integrity 

of furnished information. 

(a) Policies and procedures. Each furnisher must establish and implement reasonable 

written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information 

relating to consumers that it furnishes to a consumer reporting agency. The policies and 

procedures must be appropriate to the nature, size, complexity, and scope of each 

furnisher’s activities.

(b) Guidelines. Each furnisher must consider the guidelines in appendix E of this part in 

developing its policies and procedures required by this section, and incorporate those 

guidelines that are appropriate.

(c) Reviewing and updating policies and procedures. Each furnisher must review its policies 

and procedures required by this section periodically and update them as necessary to 

ensure their continued effectiveness. 

Case 3:15-cv-03002-G Document 5-2 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID 32
Exhibit 99.1








July 1, 2015Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Brad Borror918-588-7582








ONEOK Partners Raises Approximately $277 Million


Through ATM Equity Program





TULSA, Okla. – July 1, 2015 – ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) today announced that it sold approximately 7.2 million common units totaling approximately $277 million through its at-the-market equity program (ATM program) in the first half of 2015.





The common units sold throughout the year and the contributions from ONEOK, Inc. to maintain its 2 percent general partner interest generated total net proceeds of approximately $279.7 million, which ONEOK Partners used for general partnership purposes and to repay amounts outstanding under its commercial paper program.





ONEOK Partners sold approximately 1.7 million units under the ATM program during the first quarter 2015. As of June 30, 2015, ONEOK Partners had approximately $237.6 million of registered common units available to issue through its $650 million ATM program.





As of June 30, 2015, the aggregate ownership interest in the partnership held by ONEOK, Inc. and a subsidiary, which is the sole general partner of ONEOK Partners, was approximately 36.8 percent, compared with 37.6 percent as of March 31, 2015.





This new release is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy any of these securities and shall not constitute an offer, solicitation or sale in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale is unlawful.





ONEOK Partners, L.P. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships in the United States and is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent, Permian and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers.  Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a pure-play, publicly traded general partner, which owns 36.8 percent of the overall partnership interest, as of June 30, 2015.





For more information, visit the website at www.oneokpartners.com .





For the latest news about ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKPartners .





###
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATION

I, Jonathan P. Rosen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The First Republic
Corporation of America;

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 periods 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;

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
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

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: June 23, 2004
                                                   /s/ Jonathan P. Rosen
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Jonathan P. Rosen
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                         MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PERSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C Section 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, (the "Form 10-Q") of Mackinac
Financial Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, Paul D. Tobias, Chairman of the Issuer, certify that:

     (1)  The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Issuer.


/s/ Paul D. Tobias
-------------------------------------
Paul D. Tobias
Chairman
(chief executive officer)
August 15, 2005
---

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONGREAT BASIN GOLD LTD.(the "Company")

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  each of the undersigned officers of the Company, do hereby certify, to such
  officer's knowledge, that:

- the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December
      31, 2003 of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and
- the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations
      of the Company.

|Date: June 29, 2004                  | Date: June 29, 2004                             
|------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------
|                                     |                                                 
|                                     |                                                 
|/s/ Ronald W. Thiessen               | /s/ Jeffrey R. Mason                            
|                                     |                                                 
|Ronald W. Thiessen                   | Jeffrey R. Mason                                
|Director and Chief Executive Officer | Director, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary
|                                     |                                                 

---



---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Consolidated  Statements  of Financial  Condition of  Registrant as of March 31,
1999 (Unaudited) and the Consolidated Statements of Operations of Registrant for
the three  months  ended  March 31, 1999  (Unaudited)  and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         695,000
<SECURITIES>                                22,247,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,003,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,765,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 972,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,749,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,835,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,514,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,749,000
<SALES>                                      5,705,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,999,000
<CGS>                                        4,776,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,282,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                717,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   279,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            402,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   402,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
                                             

                                          

</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10259

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARRIE RENE CRAFT

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-144-1

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carrie Rene Craft appeals from the sentence imposed following her guiltyplea conviction for possession of counterfeit obligations ofthe United States. She

argues that her sentence was unreasonable because, in light of the mitigating

factors at issue in her case, the imposed term of imprisonment was greater than

necessary to achieve the objectives set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As she

argued in the district court prior to sentencing, Craft asserts on appeal that she

merits leniency because she provided assistance to the authorities immediately

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 11, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10259

2

upon her arrest and because her assistance led to the arrest of her

codefendant/husband. The district court explicitly noted before imposing Craft’s

sentence that it had considered Craft’s arguments as to mitigating factors, as

well as the § 3553(a) factors.

We consider Craft’s argument as to the substantive reasonableness of her

sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard, taking into accountthe totality

of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Also,

because Craft’s sentence was imposed within a properly calculated Guidelines

range, it is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United

States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S.

Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). After reviewing the substantive reasonableness of the

sentence imposed, we hold that Craft’s appellate arguments failto establish that

her sentence was unreasonable. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7838

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ADRIAN HAIRSTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-98-214-1, CA-03-205-1)

Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 20, 2004

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Adrian Hairston, Appellant Pro Se. David Paul Folmar, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Adrian Hairston seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as untimely. This

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Hairston 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 the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-410]



[[Page 1147]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Ex Parte No. 619]


Petition of Fieldston Co., Inc. To Establish Procedures Regarding 
Ex Parte Communications in Railroad Merger Proceedings

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Statement of policy.

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

SUMMARY: The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 
803 (ICCTA), at 49 U.S.C. 11324(f), permits, but does not require, ex 
parte communications in certain circumstances involving the 
consolidation, merger, or acquisition of control of railroads in a 
transaction that involves at least one Class I railroad. The Board 
announces that it will not entertain ex parte communications in 
railroad merger proceedings.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927-5660. 
[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to a petition filed by Fieldston 
Co., Inc., the Board has announced that it will not entertain ex parte 
communications in railroad merger proceedings. While a change in the 
law permits ex parte communications in railroad merger proceedings 
under certain conditions, the Board has decided not to entertain ex 
parte communications in these proceedings because entertainment of ex 
parte communications would impede efficiency, fairness, and public 
confidence in the Board's railroad merger review procedures.
    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. To 
purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, call, or pick up in 
person from: DC News & Data, Inc., Room 2229, 1201 Constitution Ave., 
N.W., Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. [Assistance 
for the hearing impaired is available through TDD services (202) 927-
5721.]

    Decided: December 31, 1996.

    By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons, and 
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-410 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

March 2, 2011

Mr. Ryan Gosche

State of Missouri

Re: In the Matter of Twitter, Inc., File No. 092 3093, Docket No. C-4316

Dear Mr. Gosche:

Thank you for your comment on the Federal Trade Commission’s consent agreement in

the above-entitled proceeding. The Commission has placed your comment on the public record

pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii),

and has given it serious consideration. 

Your comment suggests that the proposed consent order constitutes an “unconstitutional

and immoral use of force” by the Commission and, therefore, the Commission should rescind its

complaint alleging that Twitter deceived consumers and not approve the proposed order. 

The Commission disagrees with your assertion that its order is legally or morally

deficient. The Commission notes that the constitutionality of its long-standing authority to

enforce Section 5 of the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts and practices is well

established. See, e.g., FTC v. American National Cellular, Inc., 810 F.2d 1511 (9th Cir. 1987). 

The Commission further notes that, based on the facts alleged in its complaint, it believes that

Twitter deceived consumers and unreasonably put their privacy and security at risk, in violation

of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The Commission believes that the order contains relief appropriate

to address the challenged conduct and to protect consumers in the future. 

In light of these considerations, the Commission has determined that the public interest

would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without any modifications. 

The final Decision and Order and other relevant materials are available from the Commission’s

website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of

sources in its work, and it thanks you again for your comment.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
#### FLORIDA LAND AND LEASING CO., Richard Leroy Murphy and Shelby Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. William Patrick GREENWOOD, by his next friend, William Newman Greenwood, Appellee.

No. 69-841.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 23, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Roger A. Barker, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.