alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: October 27, 2016 521605 

________________________________

In the Matter of NICHOLAS SS.,

Alleged to be a Juvenile

Delinquent.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent;

NICHOLAS SS.,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 13, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Peter J. Scagnelli, Albany, for appellant.

Meghan M. Manion, County Attorney, Amsterdam (William E.

Lorman of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Devine, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Montgomery

County (Cortese, J.), entered December 22, 2014, which, in a

proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3, extended

respondent's period of supervision.

Petitioner commenced this juvenile delinquency proceeding

in 2014. Family Court thereafter ordered, upon the consent of

the parties, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal that

did not require any admissions on the part of respondent

(see Family Ct Act § 315.3 [3]). Respondent was, however,

ordered to comply with certain terms and submit to probation

supervision until April 1, 2015. Family Court restored the
-2- 521605 

matter to the calendar after it became clear that respondent's

father was obstructing the supervision efforts of the Montgomery

County Department of Probation. Family Court addressed the

situation by entreating the father to be "a little less contrary

and a little more cooperative" and extended the period of

supervision to June 1, 2015. Respondent appeals from the order

extending the period of supervision.

The extended period of supervision expired on June 1, 2015,

at which point the underlying petition was "deemed to have been

dismissed by [Family Court] in the furtherance of justice"

(Family Ct Act § 315.3 [1]). Respondent acknowledges that no

adjudication exists that could affect his legal rights under

these circumstances, and any issues relating to the appealed-from

order are therefore moot (see Matter of Ako LL. [Carla MM.], 139

AD3d 1130, 1131 [2016]; Matter of Edward V. v Crystal W., 45 AD3d

1213, 1215 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 703 [2008]). After

reviewing the contentions advanced by counsel for respondent, as

well as those raised by respondent in a pro se supplemental

brief, we are unpersuaded that the exception to the mootness

doctrine is applicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50

NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).1 Thus, the appeal is dismissed.

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

1 Respondent obtained the permission of this Court to

submit a pro se supplemental brief and prepared one with the

assistance of his father. Regardless of the advisability of the

father providing that assistance, we do not agree with petitioner

that it was unlawful for a custodial parent to assist an infant

party in this manner or that the pro se supplemental brief should

be disregarded (see CPLR 321 [a]; 1201; Family Ct Act § 165).
-3- 521605 

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 25, 2011 

h0418 

Order 

 

April 25, 2011 

142078 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142078 

 COA: 298261 

St Clair CC: 90-002046-FC 

KENNETH DALE HEATHCOAT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 21, 2010 

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).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, January 27, 2015, 09:00 a.m. to January 27, 2015, 12:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 31, 2014, 79 FR 78879.                

The meeting notice is amended to change the start time from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: January 28, 2015.

Melanie J. Gray, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-01985 Filed 2-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Instructions for the Preparation and Distribution of Material Status Reports (DOE/NRC Forms 742 and 742C) (NUREG/BR-0007)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the filing of the QuarterlyReport of Headwaters Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), we, Kirk A. Benson, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, and Scott K. Sorensen, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (i)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (ii)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Kirk A. Benson       |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Kirk A. Benson           |   |
| Chief Executive  Officer |   |
| February 2, 2007         |   |
|                          |   |
|                     |   |
| /s/ Scott K.  Sorensen   |   |
| Scott K.  Sorensen       |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer |   |
| February 2, 2007         |   |

 

----
No. 91-424.

#### Hilliard *v.*City and County of Denver et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                  <C>                   <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               APR-01-1998         JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1998         JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                        61,952,751          61,952,571
<SECURITIES>                                  17,240,436          17,240,436
<RECEIVABLES>                                 20,513,738          20,513,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (4,683,414)         (4,683,414)
<INVENTORY>                                      548,977             548,977
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              97,657,710          97,657,710
<PP&E>                                        18,854,661          18,854,661
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,621,472           3,621,472
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               121,017,045         121,017,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,602,602           4,602,602
<BONDS>                                                0                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                            0                   0
<COMMON>                                          39,658              39,658
<OTHER-SE>                                   113,493,916         113,493,916
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 121,017,045         121,017,045
<SALES>                                       13,434,909          25,147,417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              13,434,909          25,147,417
<CGS>                                          4,823,253           9,074,063
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 11,410,078          21,421,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               117,575             250,684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,950,270           4,859,081
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,161,563           1,992,223
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,788,707           2,866,858
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0                   0
<CHANGES>                                              0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,788,707           2,866,858
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.23                0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.22                0.39
                 

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6316

VINCENT ELLIOT WILSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CAPTAIN BURGESS, #685; BETH ARTHUR, Sheriff , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. David J. Novak, District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv - 00662

- DJN

- MRC )

Submitted : July 18, 2023 Decided: November 14, 2023

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Vincent Elliot Wilson , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6316 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/14/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Vincent Elliot Wilson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court ’s order

. Wilson v. Burgess , No. 3:22

- cv - 00662

- DJN

- MRC (E.D. Va.
Mar. 14, 2023) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6316 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/14/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
### From: Land, Eva

Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 5:10 PM

To: kathryn.maness@anadarko.com

Subject: Sign

- in Sheet from today's meeting

Katie,

I have attached the sign

- in sheet from our meeting today. Please feel free to send on to all attendees

from your side.

Eva Land

Air Permit s Section

EPA

- Region 4

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404

- 562

- 9103
No. 90-1676.

#### Gade, Director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency *v.*National Solid Wastes Management Assn.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.
### Table 1. U.S. Biodiesel Production Capacity and Production

(million gallons)

Period

2011

January 2,114 35

February 2,104 40

March 2,081 60

April 2,101 71

May 2,064 77

June 2,069 81

July 1,958 92

August 2,008 95

September 2,087 96

October 2,119 105

November 2,098 105

December 2,090 109

Total

-- 967

2012

January 2,140 71

February 2,111 77

March 2,110 92

April 2,122 92

May 2,123 100

June 2,120 91

July 2,090 87

August 2,106 90

September 2,106 81

October 2,121 75

November 2,130 57

December 2,127 57

Total

-- 969

2013

January 2,086 66

-- = Not Applicable

R = Revised Annual Production Capacity

B100 is the industry designation for pure biodiesel; a biodiesel blend contains both pure biodiesel

and petroleum diesel fuel. Monthly B100 Production

Totals may not equal the sum of components due to independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-22M "Monthly Biodiesel Production Survey"

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Monthly Biodiesel Production Report
Exhibit 32.1



KINDER MORGAN MANAGEMENT, LLC

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 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Kinder Morgan Management, LLC (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 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.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kinder Morgan Management, LLC and will be retained by Kinder Morgan Management, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





|                        |  |                                                       
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:
  March 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Richard D. Kinder                                 
|                        |  | Richard D. Kinder
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



---

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 5)

This NUREG-series publication was issued for public comment. The comment period is now closed.

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 5 (PDF - 496 KB)            - Appendix A
          - Appendix B
          - Appendix C
          - Appendix D
          - Appendix E
          - Appendix F
          - Appendix G
          - Appendix H
          - Appendix I
          - Appendix J
          - Appendix K
          - Appendix L 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** April 2017**Date Published:** April 2017

**Prepared by:**P. Noto

P. Noto, NRC Project Manager

Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

## Abstract

The purpose of this NUREG is to provide guidance to the analyst to promote the preparation of quality regulatory and cost-benefit analysis documents and to implement the policies of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This NUREG provides standardized methods for agency-wide use in the preparation and presentation of regulatory and cost-benefit analyses. Information on the objectives of the safety goal evaluation process and potential data sources for preparing a safety goal evaluation are also included. Consistent application of the methods provided in this guidance will result in more directly comparable analyses, thereby aiding decisionmakers to evaluate and compare various regulatory actions.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, September 07, 2022
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6906

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHAUNCEY THOMPSON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:08-cr-00159-JFM-1; 1:12-cv-03696-JFM)

Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chauncey Thompson, Jr. Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chauncey Thompson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Thompson’s motions 

for transcripts at Government expense and to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts (NUREG/CR-6372)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
November 13, 1998


                           FOURTEEN HILL CAPITAL, L.P.
                           ---------------------------
                       ANNOUNCES THIRD QUARTER FINANCINGS
                       ------------------------------------


SAN  FRANCISCO-(November 13, 1998) Fourteen Hill Capital, L.P., a majority owned

affiliate of Point West Capital  Corporation  (which  trades on NASDAQ under the

symbol PWCC) today announced  that,  during the third quarter of 1998, it closed

two financings in the aggregate amount of $1,250,000.



Fourteen Hill purchased an additional  $1,000,000 of convertible preferred stock

of  FlashNet,  Inc.  FlashNet  (www.flash.net)  is a national  Internet  Service

Provider  headquartered  in Ft.  Worth,  Texas.  FlashNet  is one of the largest

privately held ISPs in the country,  providing  Internet  access to over 200,000

individual and business customers throughout the United States.



Fourteen   Hill   purchased   a  $250,000   note  from   Homeseekers.com,   Inc.

HomeSeekers.com   (www.homeseekers.com)   is  a  leading   provider  of  on-line

residential real estate listing  information for use by home buyers, real estate

agents, mortgage and title insurance companies and others. The Company's on-line

system  currently  hosts more than  660,000  residential  real estate  listings.

Homeseekers.com trades on the OTC bulletin board under the symbol HMSK.

<PAGE>




Fourteen  Hill is a Small  Business  Investment  Company  licensed  by the Small

Business  Administration.  Fourteen  Hill provides  capital to small  businesses

(generally  businesses  whose tangible net worth does not exceed $18 million and

whose  average  net  income  during  the  preceding  two years did not exceed $6

million) whose primary businesses are located in the United States.



Commenting on the financings,  Chris Rodskog,  Senior Vice President of Fourteen

Hill Capital,  said,  "We intend to continue to seek out  investments in growing

technology  companies,  and we believe that recent  turbulence  in public equity

markets will provide us with more attractive  investment  opportunities  in this

area."



Additional information about Fourteen Hill Capital is available on the company's

Web site, http://www.fourteenhill.com, or by calling 415-394-9467.





(KEYWORD CALIFORNIA AND INDUSTRY KEYWORD: Venture Capital, Internet).
                                          ---------------  --------


CONTACTS:         FOURTEEN HILL CAPITAL, SAN FRANCISCO.

                  CHRIS RODSKOG, 415/394-9467

                  cpr@pointwestcapital.com
#### Amherst Ash & Refuse Service, Inc., Appellant, v Greg Smith et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 1021]

Order unanimously affirmed with costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Koshian, J. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Breach of Commercial Lease.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

J.M.W., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3915

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed September 12, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas

County; James Pierce, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Rachel Roebuck, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 14, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 14, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16A0537. CAROL A. LUCE v. THE FORD PLANTATION CLUB, INC..
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.