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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 November 1, 2019

s1029t

Order 

Clerk

November 1, 2019

160233

SC: 160233

In re WRIGHT, Minors. COA: 346194

Oakland CC Family Division:

2016-847902-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 15, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 32.2****Principal Executive Officer’s Certification Pursuant To****Section 1350**In connection with the Annual Report of American Natural Energy Corporation (the Company) on Form10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven P. Ensz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:     1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Steven P. Ensz      Steven P. Ensz  Chief Financial Officer  January 7, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 228 (Monday, November 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30070]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-99-000]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes to FERC 
Gas Tariff

November 20, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 15, 2000, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective 
December 15, 2000:

2nd Revised Sheet No. 78
2nd Revised Sheet No. 92

    Southern states that the purpose of this filing is to follow-
through with its proposal set forth in its Order No. 637 Compliance 
Filing in Docket No. RP00-476 in which Southern agreed to allow 
intraday storage transfers. Southern proposes to allow shippers under 
Rate Schedule ISS and CSS to request a transfer at any time prior to 
the nomination deadline applicable to the request for transfer.
    Southern states that copies of the filing will be served upon its 
shippers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motion or protests must be filed in 
accordance with 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30070 Filed 11-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 12




              BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

                        Computation of Ratio of Earnings
                                to Fixed Charges
                             (Amounts in thousands)






                                                  Fiscal Year Ended
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       September 27, September 28, September 30,
                                           1997          1996          1995     
                                       ------------  ------------  ------------
                                                                    
Income before income taxes ...........  $  96,371     $  75,350     $ 120,101   
Interest expense .....................     60,062        65,936        56,294   
Imputed interest on rent expense .....      4,938         5,006         4,636   
                                        ---------     ---------     ---------   
        Total earnings ...............  $ 161,371     $ 146,292     $ 181,031   
                                        ---------     ---------     ---------   
                                                                    
Interest expense .....................  $  60,062     $  65,936     $  56,294   
Imputed interest on rent expense .....      4,938         5,006         4,636   
                                        ---------     ---------     ---------   
        Total fixed charges ..........  $  65,000     $  70,942     $  60,930   
                                        ---------     ---------     ---------   
                                                                    
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ...        2.5           2.1           3.0   
                                        =========     =========     =========
Amendment 10 to Qualified Stock Ownership Plan


 Exhibit 10.5 
  
 Execution Copy 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 10 
  
 TO THE 
  
 UPS
QUALIFIED STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN 
 AND TRUST AGREEMENT 
  

WHEREAS, United Parcel Service of America, Inc. and certain of its affiliated companies established the UPS Qualified Stock Ownership Plan and Trust
(“Plan”) effective as of January 1, 1998 to provide their eligible employees with a matching contribution invested in the common stock of UPS (“UPS Stock”) and to permit eligible employees to transfer amounts from the UPS Savings
Plan to the Plan for the Purpose of investing in UPS Stock; and 
  
 WHEREAS, this amendment to the Plan is adopted to account for certain provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 by providing that the automatic cash-out provisions of the Plan are limited to vested accrued
benefits, the present value of which is less than $1,000; 
  
 NOW
THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority vested in the Board by Section 12.1 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1. Section 8.2, Separation from Service, is hereby amended effective March 28, 2005 by adding the following new sentence at the end of that Section to read as
follows: 
  
 Provided however, effective March 28, 2005, a lump sum payment will
automatically be made to a Participant as soon as practicable, without his or her consent, if the sum of the value of his or her Account and the value of his or her account under the Savings Plan is less than $1,000. 
  
 2. Except as otherwise provided, this amendment shall be effective as of March 28, 2005.

  
 3. Except as amended herein, the Plan as in effect before this Amendment No.
10 shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned certify that United Parcel Service of America, Inc., based upon action by its Board of Directors on this 21st day of March, 2005, has caused this Amendment No. 10 to be adopted. 
  









					
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, INC.

			
	/s/    ALLEN HILL        	 	 	 	/s/    MICHAEL L. ESKEW        
	 Allen Hill
 Secretary
	 	 	 	 Michael L. Eskew
 Chairman
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
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 July 26, 2010

s0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

140453

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140453 COA: 294390 Macomb CC: 1 998-001803-FH JAMES HARRY KLEIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 6, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PAICE LLC, ABELL FOUNDATION, INC., Appellants

v.

BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Appellees

______________________

2022

- 1355, 2022

- 1512, 2022

- 1582

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . IPR2020

- 00994, IPR2020

- 01299, IPR2020

- 01386.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

C HRISTOPHER D RYER

, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by
R UFFIN B. C ORDELL

, B RIAN J AMES L IVEDALEN

, T IMOTHY W.
R IFFE

.

V INCENT J O HN G ALLUZZO

, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellees. Also represented by J EFFREY D. S ANOK ; S COTT B ITTMAN , New York, NY. Case: 22-1355 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2023______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, R EYNA

, and C UNNINGHAM

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 7 , 2023
Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 22-1355 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 04/07/2023
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

                       NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

         The Wolverine Tube, Inc. 2001 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors
(the "Director Plan") provides for non-qualified stock option grants to
non-employee directors. Under the Director Plan, each non-employee director
initially receives a non-qualified option to purchase 5,000 shares of Common
Stock upon first becoming a director, and is granted a non-qualified option to
purchase 1,000 shares of Common Stock automatically on each anniversary of such
director's election to the Board of Directors.

         The Director Plan is administered by the Administration Committee,
which is composed of the members of the Board of Directors who are not outside
directors. The Administration Committee also has the authority to grant options
in lieu of any retainers or other compensation for directors, in addition to the
initial and annual options grants discussed above.

         Options granted under the Director Plan have an exercise price on the
date of grant equal to the fair market value of the Common Stock (as defined in
the Director Plan). Options granted upon initial election to the Board of
Directors vest at the rate of 33-1/3% per year, and options granted upon the
anniversary dates of such election or in lieu of cash retainers (if any) vest
immediately. Director Plan options have a term of ten years unless terminated
sooner due to cessation of director status or otherwise pursuant to the Director
Plan. No option granted under the Director Plan is transferable or assignable by
the outside director other than by the laws of descent and distribution or to
certain of the director's immediate family members or family entities. A total
of 250,000 shares of Common Stock have been authorized for issuance under the
Director Plan. The Plan will expire in 2011.

         Non-employee directors receive a $30,000 cash retainer paid in
semi-annual installments. Also, each non-employee director receives $1,500 for
each Board of Directors or committee meeting attended and an additional $1,500
for each such meeting chaired, and the presiding director receives an additional
$1,500 per Board meeting attended for such service. Employee directors do not
receive additional compensation for serving on the Board of Directors.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2018

No. 04-18-00291-CV & 04-18-00292-CV

FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF H.V., a Mentally Ill Person,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018MH1084 & 2018MH1161

Honorable Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On June 20, 2018, appellant, H.V., filed a motion to suspend the appellate rules as to 

briefing and oral argument, a motion to consolidate these appeals, and a motion of extension of 

time to file his brief. 

Appellant’s motion to suspend the appellate rules is DENIED. However, the Court 

recognizes the expedited nature of these appeals and will dispose of them accordingly. 

Appellant’s request to consolidate these appeals is GRANTED. We ORDER Nos. 04-18-

00291-CV and 04-18-00292-CV consolidated for purposes of briefing and argument on appeal. 

The parties must file motions, briefs, and other pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both 

appeal numbers in the style of the case. The cases must be argued together in one brief, as in a

single appeal. The court will dispose of the appeals with the same judgment, opinion, and 

mandate. This order does not extend the briefing schedule.

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his briefs is GRANTED. Appellant’s 

consolidated brief was filed on June 20, 2018. 

The appellee’s brief is due on July 10, 2018. Given the expedited nature of these appeals, 

the appellee is discouraged from seeking any additional time to file its brief and is encouraged to 

file its brief on or before July 10, 2018.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DERRICK GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-93-180-S, CA-97-1352-HNM) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 7, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derrick Green, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Slaymaker Sale, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on June 17, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on June 18, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM:Derrick Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Green , Nos. CR-93-180-S; CA-97-1352-HNM (D. Md. Jun. 18, 1998). * 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John A. O’Neal, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The issues raised by defendant on appeal lack merit. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490); the court properly exercised its discretion in making its *Sandoval*ruling *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371); defendant has not shown that the prosecutor failed to comply with his *Rosario*obligation *(see, People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286, *rearg denied*9 NY2d 908, *cert denied*368 US 866, *rearg denied*14 NY2d 876, 15 NY2d 765); and the alleged error with respect to the jury charge was not preserved for our review and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.—robbery, second degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
**Docket:** EPA - R02 - OAR- 2014 - 0251 Rescission of Determination of Attainment and Call for Attainment Plans for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut for the 1997 8 - hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the NY -NJ - CT 1997 Ozone Nonattainment Area **Comment On:** EPA - R02 - OAR- 2014 - 0251 - 0001 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut; Rescission of Determination of Attainment and Call for Attainment Plans **Document:** EPA - R02 - OAR- 2014 - 0251 - 0002 Comment on EPA - R02 - OAR- 2014 - 0251 - 0001 

## Submitter Information **General Comment** Based on the 2011 - 2013 design values in Table 1 of the proposed rule, it appears that only monitors in Connecticut had design values in exceedence of the standard. Can the EPA explain why large portions of New York and New Jersey should be considered to no longer be in attainment with the NAAQS despite all monitor design values in these states being below the 0.085 threshold? I recognize that air pollution obviously does not respect state borders, but some areas in the northern NJ non- attainment area are over 100 miles from where the CT design values are showing non - attainment. It is not clear that the designation of a major intrastate area is still "necessary and appropriate" for the attainment of the 1997 8 - hour ozone standards. 

# PUBLIC SUBMISSION **As of:** 4/8/16 8:22 AM **Received:** May 15, 2014 **Status:** Posted **Posted:** May 16, 2014 **Tracking No.** 1jy - 8c3u - shpg **Comments Due:** June 16, 2014 **Submission Type:** Web Page 1 of 1

4/ 11/2016 file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Documentum/CTS/docbases/ProDocbase/config/temp_sessions/886810606 ...
#### SCROGGINS v. MEREDITH.

No. 3522.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

July 13, 1939.

Denman & Fowler, of Nacogdoches, for plaintiff in error.

Russell & Edwards, of Nacogdoches, for defendant in error.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

This was an action in trespass to try title by defendant in error, Margarite Howard Meredith, hereinafter referred to as appel-lee, joined by her husband, E. G. Meredith, against plaintiff in error, Neil Scroggins, hereinafter referred to as appellant, to recover a certain tract of land described by metes and bounds in the petition; the only part of the land described in the petition in controversy was a lot 150 feet by 150 feet square, out of the Albert Emanuel Survey in Nacogdoches County. On trial to the court without a jury, judgment was for appellee. It was agreed that W. C. Howard, appellee’s father, was the common source of title. By warranty deed, dated the 20th day of November, 1926, filed for record the 2nd day of September, 1929, W. C. Howard conveyed to appellee a tract of 14 acres out of the Albert Emanuel league, of which the lot in controversy was a part.' Appellee then executed to her father a power of attorney, making her father, W. C. Howard, her attorney in fact, with power to sell the 14 acres; this power of attorney was not introduced in evidence but the parties treated it as established by parol testimony. By warranty deed, dated the 3rd day of November, 1934, filed for record on the same day, W. C. Howard, purporting to act as attorney in fact for appellee, who at the time was the wife of E. G. Meredith, conveyed to Warren Scroggins the lot in controversy; by his warranty deed, joined in by his wife, dated the 13th day of September, 1934, filed for record on the same day, Warren Scroggins conveyed the lot in controversy to appellant, Neil Scroggins.

Appellee owned the superior title under the common source; her subsequent marriage to E. G. Meredith revoked her power of attorney to her father, W. C. Howard. 23 Tex.Jur. 262. W. C. Howard’s deed to Warren Scroggins, after his power of attorney had been revoked, was void.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             411
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             950
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       1790
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            3491
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                          87297
<ALLOWANCE>                                        468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   96940
<DEPOSITS>                                       70379
<SHORT-TERM>                                      2600
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                458
<LONG-TERM>                                       6299
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                       15537
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   96940
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   1939
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   97
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    38
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  2074
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 928
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1071
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1003
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       12
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    505
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         331
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       331
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.89
<LOANS-NON>                                       1341
<LOANS-PAST>                                        53
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   366
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       23
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  468
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>