alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137248 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 137248 

 COA: 282122 

Oakland CC: 03-188576-FH 

KEVIN STARKS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2008 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 relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

1215 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 30, 2008 

 Clerk
1 The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of

South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2637

___________ Richard Hopewell, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Paul A. Richards, * District of South Dakota. * Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: August 6, 1999 Filed: August 12, 1999

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. RichardHopewell appeals from the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment to attorney Paul A. Richards in this diversity action. We conclude that the district court was not required to compel compliance with a local rule that required a summary judgment movant to provide a statement of undisputed material facts, where the court found the issues had otherwise been adequately developed by the parties. See Drake v. Scott , 812 F.2d 395, 401 (8th Cir.) (“It is normally for the district court to enforce-2-

compliance with its local rules.”), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 965 (1987). We note, moreover, that Mr. Hopewell had himself characterized Mr. Richards’s motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, he had ample time to respond the motion, he referredthe court to documents outside the pleadings, and he did not object at the hear ing when the district court stated it would treat the motion as one for summary judgment. See Madewell v. Downs , 68 F.3d 1030, 1048 (8th Cir. 1995). We conclude that the judgment is correct and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Motor Sport Country Club Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Claus Wagner, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief that:





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





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





Date: May 23, 2011

/s/ Claus WagnerClaus WagnerChief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57847-57848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24665]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Notice of Correction to Biweekly Notice of Applications and 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

    On September 20, 2000, the Federal Register published the Biweekly 
Notice of Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 
Involving No Significant Hazards Consideration. On page 56958, column 
1, delete notices

[[Page 57848]]

beginning with Commonwealth Edison Company and ending on page 56959, 
column 3, with the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company notice. These 
notices are duplicates of those that correctly appear under the heading 
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of September 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Zwolinski,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-24665 Filed 9-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1764 

To prohibit appropriated funds from being used in contravention of section 

642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

Act of 1996. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2011 

Mr. BOUSTANY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit appropriated funds from being used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform 

and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTION OF COPS FUNDING FOR SANC4 TUARY CITIES. 

5 None of the amounts appropriated in any Act for the 

6 Community Oriented Policing Services Program may be 

7 used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal ImVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:52 May 09, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1764.IH H1764

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1764 IH

1 migration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 

2 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)). 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
----

|   | Exhibit      32.1 |
|--------|-------------------|

| CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|

| PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |  /s/ Timothy J.  Tegeler      |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | Timothy      J. Tegeler            |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer       |
|   | (Principal      Executive Officer) |
SERVED: JUNE 14, 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THEMATTER OF GREAT LAKES AVIATION, LTD FAADOCKETNO. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil PenaltyAction) FDMS NO. FAA-2011 - 0672 NOTICE OF HEARING DATES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENthattestimony and evidence will be heard and considered onNovember27,2012, inclusive, inthe. Courtroom #601 Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 90119thStreet, 2nd Floor, Denver CO. 80294. Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at4:30p.m. each day. Theparties shallvacate the courthouse onorbefore 5:00p.m. each day. · Settled cases will notbe removed from the docket untilthe Judge receives theproper pleading(s). Pleadings maybe forwardedbyfax, express mail, courierorpostal service.

Attachment- Service List ·""·



### 1 

## 3: 00SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-. Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Timothy R. Thornton, Respondent's Counsel Briggs and Morgan, P.A.

2200 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2157 TEL: 612-977-8400 FAX: 612-977-8650

Kyle Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, SW. Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAX: 425-227-1007

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0672 (Civil Penalty Action) . The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-20 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Legal Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536 . .

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. - -2-
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 0061 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 029 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 2013 - 0016 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2486

SAM GREEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, at Charlotte,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-2701

SAM GREEN,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, at Charlotte,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-93-346-3-MU)

Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: April 29, 1997
2

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sam Green, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oregon Lawton, III, Associate

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Sam Green appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment for the the University of North Carolina at Charlotte

(UNCC) in this employment discrimination action brought under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000e, 2000e-2 (1994). UNCC cross-appeals the district court's

order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of proper process and

service of process. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion granting summary judgment and find no reversible

error. Therefore, in No. 96-2486, we affirm the grant of summary

judgment on the reasoning of the district court. Green v. University of North Carolina, No. CA-93-346-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 23,

1996). In light of this determination, we find it unnecessary to

decide whether the district court properly denied UNCC's motion to

dismiss. Cf. Chesapeake Paper Prods. Co. v. Stone & Webster Eng'g

Corp., 51 F.3d 1229, 1234-37 (4th Cir. 1995). Thus, we affirm in

No. 96-2701 as well. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tranquility, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report), I, Dominick Pope, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  August 12, 2008 /s/Dominick Pope     Chief Executive Officer
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SALVADOR

SOLIS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. DANIEL PAR

AM O, W arde n; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-56256 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01888-DM SWVG M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D ana M . Sa

braw, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r Sa lva dor Solis a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . §1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. Re snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000)



# FIL ED JUN 30 2014 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).(dism i ssa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194

(9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Solis’ s a c t ion be c a use Solis fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t de fe nda nts a c te d with de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his pa in following kne e s urge ry . Se e Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th C ir. 2004) (de libe rate indiffe re n c e is a high le ga l sta

nda rd, a nd is m e t only if the de fe nda

nt knows of a

nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to theinm at e ’ s he a lth; a m e re diffe re nc e in opinion c onc e rning thec ourse of tre atm e nt is insuffic ie nt). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 6 2 5 6 2
Exhibit 99.2





PVH Corp. Declares Quarterly Cash Dividend








NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)—August 4, 2022-- PVH Corp. [NYSE:PVH], announced the Board of Directors of PVH Corp. declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.0375 per share payable on September 28, 2022 to stockholders of record on September 7, 2022.








About PVH Corp.





PVH is the growth platform for Calvin Klein and TOMMY HILFIGER . Through driving brand strength and relevance, we are connecting our global, iconic brands closer to where the consumer is going than ever before, today and with future generations. Guided by our values and enabled by our scale and global reach, we are driving fashion forward for good, as one team with one vision and one plan. That’s the Power of Us. That’s the Power of PVH.








Follow us on Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and LinkedIn .








Contact:


Mark D. Fischer


Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary


(212) 381-3509
Exhibit 99.1


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


        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Siliconix incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 29, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, King
Owyang, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


                                                /s/ King Owyang
                                                ---------------------------
                                                King Owyang
                                                President and Chief Executive
                                                Officer
                                                August 13, 2002
Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries of TransMontaigne Partners L.P. at December 31, 2010*

Ownership
of
subsidiary

Name of subsidiary

Trade
name

State/Country
of
organization100%

TransMontaigne Operating GP L.L.C.

None

Delaware100%

TransMontaigne Terminals L.L.C.

None

Delaware100%

TLP Mex L.L.C.

None

Delaware100%

TPSI Terminals L.L.C.

None

Delaware100%

TransMontaigne Operating Company L.P.

None

Delaware100%

Razorback L.L.C. (d/b/a Diamondback Pipeline L.L.C.)

None

Delaware100%

TLP Operating Finance Corp.

None

Delaware100%

TMOC Corp.

None

Delaware100%

TPME L.L.C.

None

Delaware100%

Penn Octane de Mexico, S. de R.L.de C.V.

None

Mexico100%

Tergas, S. de R.L. de C.V.

None

Mexico100%

Termatsal, S. de R.L. de C.V.

None

Mexico


*Omits
non-operating subsidiaries that, considered in the aggregate, do not constitute significant subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010.


---



QuickLinks
|                                                                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                                         
|Louisiana - South Onshore Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                                                         
|Louisiana - South Onshore Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 159    | 73     | 102    | 42    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 50     | 38     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
# c :res um er S u bgr oup A n a lys i s

James E. McMahon (JEMcMahon@LBL.gov) Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
DOE Workshop on Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers

July 17, 2001Excerpt from "Principles for the

Analysis of Impacts on Consumers"

• "The Department will use regional analysis and sensitivity analysis tools, as appropriate, to evaluate the potential distribution of impacts of candidate standards levels on consumers. The Department will consider impacts on significant segments of society in determining standards levels. Where there are significant negative impacts on identifiable subgroups, DOE will consider the efficacy of voluntary approaches as a means to achieve potential energy savings."
Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 136, 36986-7 (July 15, 1996)

15Consumer Subgroup Analysis.



## ^efinitions of subgroups

• RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS: in addition to the general population, impacts on two subgroups have been analyzed previously: - low income households (life cycle cost impacts) - elderly households (e.g., lower usage affected LCC of clothes washer standards)



### • What subgroups should be considered for residential furnaces and boilers?