alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATIONExhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Ernie R. Krueger, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Mackinac FinancialCorporation, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mackinac Financial Corporation (the“registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 15, 2007  /s/ Ernie R. Krueger   ERNIE R. KRUEGER   EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER(principal financial officer)   
32.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7670 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7670

   To prevent the establishment of a denaturalization section in the 
             Department of Justice, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2020

     Mr. Carbajal (for himself, Mr. Espaillat, and Mrs. Torres of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prevent the establishment of a denaturalization section in the 
             Department of Justice, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defend New Americans Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    No Federal funds may be used to implement, administer, or enforce 
the policy of the Department of Justice, issued February 26, 2020, to 
establish a denaturalization section in the Office of Immigration 
Litigation of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice or any 
successor policy.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,437,339
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,236,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                        57,297
<INVENTORY>                                      5,947,519
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,176,296
<PP&E>                                          88,084,715
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,203,402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,003,139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,862,032
<BONDS>                                         28,041,288
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,175,261
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,563,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,003,139
<SALES>                                         21,159,789
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,035,178
<CGS>                                           19,060,884
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,708,150
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,392,857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    319,345
<INCOME-TAX>                                       320,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                577,311
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       577,311
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .86
                                               


</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In re : C ITY OF VALLEJO, C A, De

btor, M IC HAEL LIONEL, Appe lla

nt, v. C ITY OF VALLEJO, C A ; INTER NATIONAL ASSOC IATION OF FIR E FIGHTER S IAFF UNION LOC AL 1186, Appe lle e s. No. 12-60042 B AP Nos. 12-1020, 12-1021 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Kirsc he r, Jury , and Pa

ppa s , B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED D EC 31 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).M ic ha e l Lione l, a c re ditor a

nd m e m be r of the Inte rnationa l Assoc iation of Fire fighte rs IAFF Union Loc a l 1186 (“ IAFF” ), a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the B ankruptc y Appe l lat e Pane l’ s (“ B AP” ) orde r dism issing a s m oot his a ppe a ls of theba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s orde rs re ga

rding a se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt be twe e n C ha pte r 9 de btor C ity

of Va lle jo a n d IAFF. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d). W e re vie w de novo a de te rm inat ion tha

t a n a p pe a l from

a ba nkruptc y c ourt de c ision is moot. N at’l Mass Media Te le c omm. Sy s., Inc . v . Stanle

y (In reN a t’l Mass Me dia Te le c omm. Sy

s., Inc .) , 152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th C ir. 1998). W e a ffirm . The B AP prope rly

dism i sse d the a

ppe a ls a s m oot be c a

use Lione l did not se e k or obta i n a

sta y pe nding a

ppe a l and the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt ha s be e n fully e xe c ute d, inc luding thedistribution of funds to third pa rtie s, re n de ring the ba nkruptc y c ourt una b le to fa shion e ffe c tive and e quita ble re lie f. Se eMotor Ve hic leC as. C o . v . Thorpe

Insulation C

o. (In reThorpe

Insulation C

o.) , 677 F.3d 869, 880-81 (9th C ir. 2012) (disc ussing e quita ble m ootne ss). Appe lle e s’ m otion for le a ve to file a

lim ite d surre ply

is de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 6 0 0 4 2 2
#### Richard DECKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1026.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 13, 1973.

Waldense D. Malouf, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the judgment and sentence and discharge the defendant on the authority of Freimuth v. State, Fla.1972, 272 So.2d 473, and State v. Hoagland, Fla. 1973, 272 So.2d 478.

MANN, C. J., and LILES and BOARD-MAN, JJ., concur.
west 

### virginia department of environmental protection
Division ofAirOualih. 601 5~ street SE Charleston, WV 25304 Phone 3041926-0475 FAX:3041926-0479 June 5,2013
Ms. Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division USEPA Region 

### I11 1650 Arch Street (3AP00) Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Earl Ray Tomblin, Governor Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretaly www.dep.w.gov


# I RE: Proposed Air QualityRules for 2014 Legislative Session

Enclosed is a notice of public comment period and public hearings, and a copy of seven (7) proposed air quality rules: 45CSR8, 45CSR14, 45CSR16, 45CSR18, 45CSR19, 45CSR25 and 45CSR34 for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality (DAQ). Once these rules have been authorized andpromulgated 

### by the West VirginiaLegislature, the DAQ is proposing to adopt them in the Spring of 2014. Please note the DAQ will accept written comments on the proposed rules up to and including July 8,2013. In addition, the agency will receive oral comments at a public hearing to be held on July 8,2013, beginning at 6:00 p.m. The attached public notice describes which rules the agency 

### is proposing and what action the DAQ intends to request ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency upon the authorization and promulgation ofthe rules in the Spring of 2014. Please submit anywrittencommentsto my attentionatthe aboveaddress,or feel freeto call me with any questions regarding this matter at (304) 926-0462.



## J Director JABIjlm Enclosures 

### Promoting a 

### healthy environment.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

t0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

142435

DOUGLAS LATHAM, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142435 COA: 290268 Oakland CC: 2004-059653-NO BARTON MALOW COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 7, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions pr esented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals. We note that the Court of Appeals decision places no lim its on the trial court’s discretion to allow the parties to conduct further discovery and/or file re newed motions for summary disposition, if appropriate.
#### Vasco HOWARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-7.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 22, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
258 La. 365

#### Claudia Ray MELANCON v. Claude C. MELANCON.

No. 51333.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1971.

In re: Claudia R. Melancon applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Pointe Coupee. 244 So.2d 905.

Writ denied. On facts found by the court of appeal, its judgment is correct.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8706-8707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4676]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-408-018]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

February 20, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 14, 1997, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on 
Appendix A to the filing, to become effective on February 1, 1997.
    On December 31, 1996, as revised on January 17, 1997, Columbia 
filed revised tariff sheets in Docket No. RP95-408, et al. that, inter 
alia, would implement lower settlement rates pending Commission action 
on the November 22, 1996 settlement in this docket, contingent upon 
customers being subject to a surcharge in the event the settlement is 
not approved or implemented. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) issued its order on Columbia's filings on January 29, 1997 
(78 FERC para. 61,071), which accepted the revised tariff sheets but 
which required that Columbia file revised tariff sheets setting forth 
the existing rates which any customer that does not agree to the 
surcharge provision may pay until the settlement is acted upon by the 
Commission.
    Columbia states that the instant filing is being made in compliance 
with that order. The revised tariff sheets herein indicate they are 
``Collection Rates'' and contain a statement that they are applicable 
to customers not wanting to be subject to the surcharge condition 
associated with paying the Settlement Rates. These tariff sheets 
reflect the rates that were in effect in the billing month preceding 
February 1, 1997.
    Columbia states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
parties in this proceeding, firm and interruptible customers, and 
affected state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the

[[Page 8707]]

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4676 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 26505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12255]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 7, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 4, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 438 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-161, CP2018-
231.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-12255 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
259 La. 681

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Philip J. ANSELMO, Jr., and Terrance C. Lee.

No. 51664.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 17, 1971.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Matthew S. Braniff, Judge of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 10th day of November, 1971, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondents through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11' o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Jimmy TONEY v. Hon. Rudolph BECKER, Judge.

No. 60762.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1977.

In re: Jimmy Toney, applying for writ of mandamus.

Writ granted in part. Application transferred to trial court for consideration.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MIGUEL D. MARTIN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2914

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 20, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Collier County; Frederick R. Hardt, 

Judge.

Miguel D. Martin, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Bilal Ahmed Faruqui, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa,

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10320 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUAN JOSE ALVARES

- ALEMAN , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:13

- CR

- 59

- 1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Jose Alvares

Aleman has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Alvares

- Aleman h a s not file d a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 2, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10320 Document: 00512991374 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2015No. 14

- 10320

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-10320 Document: 00512991374 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
#### Arthur Lee GERVIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-681.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 12, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; D. C. Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
⁄±ÆÀÚÕÚ1⁄2· ̈·¶a2­Ù °aÆ3ø2a2 ̈ Æa­·oa2 ̈­Ùø2o1⁄2aÆ ̈ø·2 2±2Û1⁄2· ̈·¶a2ÀÚÕÚ⁄±Æø¥¥± ̈ ̧aÆ­Ù ̈ ̧·­o±1⁄2 ́3a2 ̈ Æa°Æa­a2 ̈­øÆa1⁄2±12· ̈·±2±o±©2aÆ­ ̧·°Ú⁄±Æø¥¥ ̧±¥oaÆ­Ùo±Æø¥¥±°aÆø ̈·±2­± ̈ ̧aÆ ̈ ̧ø2ø­ø3±oa¥ø·Æ1⁄2Æøo ̈ ́2oaÆ­a1⁄2ÚÌÌÍ±o– ́æÚ‘ÚÔÔÓÛÁÎÙøoo· ̈·±2ø¥­øoa ̈ßø ́ ̈ ̧±Æ· ̈ßoÆ±3⁄flflø2oa1⁄2±2±3·1⁄2ø ́ ̈ ̧±Æ· ̈ßoÆ±3‹—Ã3øßæaÆaØ ́·ÆaoÚ›¤ŒÃ×⁄×›flÃ¤ÿ—‘‹¤ŒÊÀflÕ›¤ŒÃ×⁄×›flÃ¤“À”fi¤ŒÊ×ÕÕÀ¤‹Ê¤»–×Œ¤ÕÊ⁄aoaÆø¥flTM·ø ̈·±2flo3·2·­ ̈Æø ̈·±2ã⁄¥ßæa¥±©Ïððoaa ̈ãã’aa°ß± ́ÆÀflÕ©· ̈ ̧·2TM·­ ́ø¥¥·2a±o­·1 ̧ ̈ã’aa°ø©øßoÆ±3a3aÆ1a21⁄2ßÆa­°±2oaÆãaTMa2 ̈­±Æ1Æ± ́°­±o°a±°¥aã±ooÆ ́1­±Æø¥1⁄2± ̧±¥ã1⁄2±2 ̈Æ±¥ø2oø·Æ°±Æ ̈ø ́ ̈ ̧±Æ· ̈·a­”·1⁄2 ̧øa¥ŸøÆ1⁄2·ø⁄flÌ”ÌŒÏ»“ÿðÌÒðÈÒÓðÔÍðÌÒðÈÒÓðÔÁ
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Charles BURKINS, Jr. v. Matthew S. BRANIFF, Judge, Criminal District Court.

No. 60059.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 1977.

In re: Charles Burkins, Jr., applying for writ of mandamus.

Writ denied: Since the trial court has set the hearing for October 7th, the mandamus petition is moot.