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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 133882 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133882 COA: 275877 Kent CC: 05-008601-FC RICHARD CALVIN BURREL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 18, 2007 order 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.

d0830 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.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD SPENCER MAZZAFERRO,

Creditor

- Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM PARISI,

Debtor

- Appellee. No. 15

- 15990

D.C. No. 3:14

- cv

- 02624

- JST

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017 **

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Rondald Spencer Mazzaferro appeals pro se fr om the district court’s order

denying his motion for rehearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 158(d) and 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal

from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standard of review applied by the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument

, set forth in his motion to consolidate

, is denied. 

# FILED

MAR 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 15990

district court. In re AFI Holding, Inc. , 525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2008). We

affirm.

The distr ict court denied Mazzafaro’s motion for rehearing of its order

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order sanction ing Mazzaferro. In his opening

brief, Mazzaferro fail s to address how the distr ict court erred . As a result, he ha s

waived his appeal of the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045,

1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening

brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994)

(“We review onl y issues which are argued specifically and di stinctly in the

opening brief.” ).

We reject as without merit Mazzaferro’s contentions that the bankruptcy

court and the district court violated due process.

To the extent that Mazzaferro challenges the district court’s order denying

his motion to unseal, the district court did not err in denying the request because

Mazzaferro did not seek relief from the bankruptcy court in the first instance but

presented the request for the first time o n appeal to the district court

.

To the extent that Mazzaferro seeks an order from this court directing the

bankruptcy court and district court to unseal judicial records, the request is denied.

All pending motions are denied

.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

NICHOLAS CONNERS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 65 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
DISMISSED; Opinion Filed May 21, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00321
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF T .T., G.M. AND C.M., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1
- 17
- 0922 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Osborne, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Myers This appeal follows the trial court’s order terminating Mother and Father’s parenta l rights
to their children. The appeal was filed by the paternal grand fathe r, who asserted in the notice of appeal that he had intervened in the underlying suit. After reviewing the clerk’s record and finding nothing that reflected paternal grandfather h ad intervened, we directed him to file a letter brief addressing how he had standing to appeal the trial court’s termination order

. See State v. Naylor , 466 S.W.3d 783, 787 (Tex. 2015) (“appellate standing is typically afforded ‘only to parties of
record’ ”) (quoting Gunn v. Cavanaugh , 391 S.W.2d 723 , 724

- 25 (Tex. 1965) ) ; Johnston v. Crook , 93 S.W.3d 263, 268 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (“[A]n intervenor is a party for purposes of appeal only if (1) she timely files a [ plea of interve ntion] , and (2) the trial court does not strike the pleading before the entry of final judgment.”). We explained that an appellate court generally has no jurisdiction over an appeal filed by an appellant who lacks standing and cautioned him that failure t o comply by April 15, 2019 could result in dismissal of– 2

–

the appeal. See Naylor , 466 S.W.3d at 787 ( “[A]n appeal filed by an improper party must be dismissed.”) ; see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a),(c)

. T o date, however, he has not responded. Because the record does not reflect paternal grandfather intervened, he lacks standing to challenge the order of termination and we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Naylor , 466
S.W.3d at 787. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. ; see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

190321F.P05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF T.T., G.M. AND C.M., CHILDREN
No. 05

- 19

- 00321

- CV On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court, Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1

- 17

- 0922. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Osborne and Nowell participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entere d this 21 st day of May, 2019.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
27, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                              79
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,765
<INVENTORY>                                    102,706
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,974
<PP&E>                                          78,470
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 283,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,515
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   283,352
<SALES>                                        884,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               884,082
<CGS>                                          681,056
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  681,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               180,516
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,707
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (614)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       946
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,560)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,560)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth BINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-1015.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 4, 1993.

Decided Oct. 8, 1993.

*405Barry R. Elden, Asst. U.S. Atty. (submitted), Office of the U.S. Atty., Crim. Receiving, Appellate Div., Chicago, IL, for plaintiff-appellee.

Deborah J. Gubin, Chicago, IL, for defendant-appellant.

Before CUDAHY, RIPPLE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On October 4, 1993, the parties in this direct criminal appeal filed an agreed motion to remand this case to allow the district court to resentence the defendant. On October 8, 1993, we denied the motion without prejudice to its renewal if the district court certifies its intention to resentence. We have since decided to publish our opinion to advise district courts of the certification procedure we have adopted for Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) motions made during the pendency of an appeal.

Once a notice of appeal has been filed, the district court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) motion to reduce sentence. *United States v. Kerley,*838 F.2d 932, 941 (7th Cir.1988). Rule 35 comes into play only after the exhaustion of appellate remedies, *id.;*a question thus arises as to the proper procedure to follow when a Rule 35(b) motion is made during the pendency of an appeal. Because “[t]he mere filing of a Rule 35(b) motion ... does not justify the interruption of the appellate process to permit the consideration of what may prove to be an unsuccessful and time-consuming procedure,” *United States v. Sanzo,*831 F.2d 671, 672 (6th Cir.1987), we adopt the certification procedure employed by the Sixth Circuit in *Samo*and suggested by the Third Circuit' in *United States v. Batka,*916 F.2d 118, 120 n. 5 (3d Cir.1990). Where a party moves for sentence reduction under Rule 35(b) during the pendency of an appeal, it must request that the district court certify its inclination to grant the motion. If the district court is inclined to resentence the defendant, it shall certify its intention to do so in writing. The government (or the parties jointly) may then request that we remand by way of a motion that includes a copy of the district court’s certification order.

Consistent with this procedure, the parties to this appeal may renew their agreed motion to remand if the district court certifies that it is inclined to resentence the defendant.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1567-1568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00337]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2544-000]


Hydro Technology Systems; Notice of Authorization for Continued 
Project Operation

    The license for the Meyers Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2544 was 
issued for a period ending December 31, 2023.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the 
Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-
year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the 
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other 
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived 
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth 
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an 
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to 
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the 
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project 
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be 
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations 
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or 
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2544 is issued to 
Hydro Technology Systems for a period effective January 1, 2024, 
through December 31, 2024, or until the issuance of a new license for 
the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. 
If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place 
on or before December 31, 2024, notice is hereby given that, pursuant 
to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA 
is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the

[[Page 1568]]

Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Hydro Technology Systems is authorized to continue 
operation of the Meyers Falls Hydroelectric Project under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until the issuance of a subsequent 
license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever 
comes first.

    Dated: January 4, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-00337 Filed 1-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Lu SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-3307.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 22, 1994.

D. Kansas, D.C. No. 92-20011-01; John W. Lungstrum, District Judge.

*486Before BALDOCK, ALDISERT *, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Ruggero J. Aldisert, United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.

Brenda Lu Smith appeals the district court’s special verdict ordering forfeiture following her conviction for two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and three counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. The Appellant raised this issue on appeal in order to preserve her position that, should we reverse the underlying criminal conviction, we must necessarily reverse the forfeiture order. Accordingly, because we affirmed her conviction in *United States v. Smith,*13 F.3d 1421 (10th Cir.1994), we will also affirm the order of forfeiture.
From: Maness, Katie [Kathryn.Maness@anadarko.com]

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:56 AM

To: Fortin, Kelly

Cc: Land, Eva

Subject: RE: Part 71 Fee Payment

Hello Kelly,

We did not pay the fees in December of 2012. The current drilling schedule shows that we will begin 

drilling in December of this year. When should we send you the payment?

Thanks,

Katie

Katie Maness

EHS Manager, GOM

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

832-636-2582

From: Fortin, Kelly [mailto:Fortin.Kelly@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 11:14 AM

To: Maness, Katie

Cc: Land, Eva

Subject: Part 71 Fee Payment

KatieI just want to confirm that Anadarko did not actually remit $58,558 dollars to our financial office in 

Cincinnati with your application in December 2012, correct? When I checked, they did not include any 

such payment in the report – so I just want to confirm. The remittance form is included in your 

application, in addition to the fee calculation form. However, it is my understanding that you are not 

paying the fees until the year you start operating. The forms aren’t exactly set up well for OCS sources. 

Thanks,

Kelly

Kelly A. Fortin

Sr. Environmental Engineer

Air Permits Technical & Policy Advisor

USEPA Region 4, Atlanta GA

Fortin.Kelly@EPA.gov

Click here for Anadarko’s Electronic Mail Disclaimer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

January 24, 2007

E R R A T A

Appeal No. 2006-1062

MBO LABS V BECTON

Decided: January 24, 2007 Precedential Opinion

Please make the following change:

Page 9, at lines 9-10: after the sentence ending with “ appear .”, strike the following

sentence: “ We agree with each of these conclusions .”
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AS ADOPTED****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, John Lackland, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Power Efficiency Corporation (the“small business issuer”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and 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 small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’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 havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: August 13, 2007 /s/ John Lackland         John Lackland    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER    (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER)
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78079-78080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement Notice of Availability and Public 
Hearings; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 
Department of Energy.

[[Page 78080]]

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: On December 17, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
published a notice of availability in the Federal Register of the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line 
Transmission Project (DOE/EIS-0486; Draft EIS). This notice corrects 
the date of the public comment period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jane Summerson, Ph.D., DOE NEPA 
Document Manager on behalf of the Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, NNSA, PO Box 391 
Building 401, Kirtland Air Force Base East, Albuquerque, NM 87185; 
email at Jane.Summerson01@nnsa.doe.gov; or phone (505) 845-4091.

Correction

    In the Federal Register dated December 17, 2014 in FR Doc. 2014-
29524, please make the following corrections on page 75132:
    The end of the first sentence in the DATES section, is corrected by 
removing ``which ends on March 17, 2015'' and adding ``which begins on 
December 19, 2014, and ends on March 19, 2015'' in its place.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 19, 2014.
Patricia A. Hoffman,
Assistant Secretary Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability.
[FR Doc. 2014-30393 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-24-00371-CV

Nueces County, Texas

v.

Manuel Mota and Aurelia Mota

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022CCV-61163-3

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

the party incurring same.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 3, 2024
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
     /s/ D. Scott OlivetName:
    
    D. Scott OlivetTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    November 7, 2007/s/ Richard ShieldsName:
    
    Richard ShieldsTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    November 7, 2007
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME

  The following bill was read the first time:

       S. 3607. A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

                          ____________________
```