alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TO: All Court of Appeals Judges, Professor Bacigal, and John Tucker 

FROM: Marty Ring 

DATE: December 6, 2016 

 

 The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

appealed to the Supreme Court: 

 

1. Victoria Elizabeth Dufresne 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0281-15-2 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Beales on 

 October 18, 2016 
 The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

disposed of by the Supreme Court: 

1. Tevein Dewayne Harvey 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 2037-14-2 

 Opinion rendered by Judge McCullough 

 on October 13, 2015 

Refused (151685) 

2. Donna Marie Porter 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1374-14-2 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Alston 

 on November 17, 2015 

Refused (151939) 

3. Crystal Gail Ramsey 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0123-15-1 

 Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Huff 

 on December 29, 2015 

Refused (160121) 

4. Michael Paul Reid 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0511-15-1 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Atlee 

 on February 2, 2016 

Refused (160234) 

5. Nicholas David Pelloni 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0586-15-1 

 Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Huff 

 on February 2, 2016 

Refused (160344) 

6. Keith Alexander Mayberry 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0225-15-3 

 Opinion rendered by Judge O’Brien 

 on March 8, 2016 

Refused (160554) 
7. Lamont Anthony Woods 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0315-15-3 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Beales 

 on March 8, 2016 

Refused (160568) 

8. Derek Justice Doggett 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0548-15-2 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Beales 

 on April 12, 2016 

Refused (160759)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07230]



[[Page 16564]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 49

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0479; FRL9923-70-Region 8]


Approval and Promulgation of Federal Implementation Plan for Oil 
and Natural Gas Well Production Facilities; Fort Berthold Indian 
Reservation (Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation), North Dakota; 
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final rule, which 
published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2013 (78 FR 17836). 
Errors in the amendatory instruction are identified and corrected in 
this action.

DATES: This action is effective March 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6142, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f1e061e131e51141e0b17063f1a0f1e51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="107169717c713e7b71647869507560713e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The final regulations for 40 CFR part 49 subsections 49.4161 
through 49.4168 that are the subject of this correction were finalized 
and published March 22, 2013 (78 FR 17836). A previous final rule 
published in the Federal Register at 77 FR 48878, August 15, 2012, 
published the interim provisions at 40 CFR part 49 subsections 49.140 
through 49.147.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations contain an error in the 
amendatory instruction and set-out text:

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 49 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendment:

PART 49--INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

0
1. The authority citation for Part 49 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart C--General Federal Implementation Plan Provisions


Sec. Sec.  49.140 through 49.147   [Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec.  49.140 through 49.147

    Dated: March 19, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-07230 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: Paul Hughes

To: Finamore, Robert (OST)

Cc: Jaffe, Darren (OST); Kruger, Brett (OST)

Subject: Docket : DOT-OST-2013-0135 Air Contractors (Ireland) Limited

Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:10:42 AM

Air Contractors (Ireland) Limited wish to amend its exemption authority request under docket DOTOST-2013-0135.

Please revise our requested exemption authority to cover:

i. foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons and property from any point or

points behind any Member State of the European Union, via any point or points in any Member

State and via intermediate points to any point or points in the United States and beyond;

ii. foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons, property, and mail between

any point or points in the United States and any point or points in any member of the European

Common Aviation Area;

iii. foreign scheduled and charter cargo air transportation between any point or points in the

United States and any point or points;

iv. other charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements set forth in 14 CFR Part 212 of

the Department's Economic Regulations; and

v. transportation authorized by any additional route rights that may be made available to

European Union carriers in the future

It remains our intention to operate routes starting in Jan 2014 out of Ireland for Aer Lingus.

There is no code share on any of the routes being sold that shall be operated by Air Contractors

(Ireland) limited.

We shall apply for the code share authorisation at a later date once the requirements of the

codeshare audits have been completed. We expect that in Q1 2014.

Many thanks for your assistance in this matter

Best regards

paul

Paul Hughes

Route Facilities Manager

Air Contractors
t +353 18121151

m +353 876156978

f +353 18120926

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Air Contractors (Ireland) Limited, 3 Malahide Road, Swords, Co Dublin, Ireland. Company number

187849. This company is part of the ASL Aviation Group and the correspondence may have been

sent on behalf of another company in the group. If in doubt, or if you require further information,

please contact the sender.

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are

not the intended recipient of this e-mail please let us know by reply and delete it from your system ;

you should not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Due to the integrity risk of

sending emails over the internet, the ASL Aviation Group will accept no liability for any comments

and / or attachments contained within this email.
#### Primavera v. Jennings.

*Practice*— Discharge *from arrest*— Act *of June 1, 1915.*

Under the provisions of the Act of June 1, 1915, P. L. 704, the court is given discretionary power to hold or discharge from arrest a defendant in an action, of trespass if satisfied that all the provisions of the act have been complied with by him.

Rule to show cause why defendant should not be discharged from arrest on a *capias ad satisfaciendum sur*judgment on a verdict. C. P. Northampton Co., Feb. T., 1920, Nos. 27 and 28.

*Smith, Paff*and *Laub,*for plaintiff; *Everett Kent,*for defendant.

McKeen, J.

This is a rule to show cause why the defendant in the above-stated case should not be discharged from arrest on a *capias ad satisfaciendum*issued *sur*judgment on a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in an action of trespass.

The proceeding is brought under the provisions of the Act of June 1, 1915, P. L. 704, entitled “An act providing for the discharge of persons arrested or held on process issued on a judgment obtained in civil actions.” In accordance with the provisions of the act, notice was given to plaintiff and the other creditors of defendant. At the hearing in open court, it appeared defendant was the owner of household goods to the value of $50 and was unable to pay the judgment. It further appeared that about April 1, 1919, defendant entered into partnership with Walter Hoffman in a garage business, which was unsuccessful and terminated in September, 1919. The defendant was the *802owner of an automobile, which he transferred to his partner subsequent to the verdict rendered in the above-stated case, as a contribution towards his share of the partnership indebtedness. The plaintiff contends that defendant is not entitled to discharge, for the reason that the automobile was transferred with intent to avoid payment of the judgment, which is not sustained by the evidence. The 4th section of the act provides: “Upon the hearing of the rule the petitioner shall be required to answer all questions put to him, and shall produce all books and papers required of him, and if it shall appear to the court that the petitioner is without means or property with which to pay the judgment, and that he has not secreted or assigned any of his property so as to avoid the payment of the judgment, the court may discharge him from arrest. . . .” Under this phraseology the court is given discretionary power to hold or discharge if satisfied that all of the provisions of the act have been complied with on the part of the defendant. While mere compliance with the provisions of the act would not *ipso facto*entitle the defendant to a discharge (De Many *v.*Wainer, 25 Dist. R. 687), yet, under the circumstances of the present case, we would not feel warranted in requiring the defendant to surrender himself into custody.

And now, Dec. 5,1921, rule absolute.

From Henry D. Maxwell, Easton, Pa.
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION

I, Hugh Grenfal, Jr., certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Camden
Mines Limited

2. 	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.  	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report.

4. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
we have:

a) 	designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;

b) 	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) 	presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

a) 	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls;

and
b) 	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

6. 	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes
in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly
affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated this 12th day of February, 2004
/s/


(Signature)
Hugh Grenfal, Jr.
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.30

News
Release
August 18, 2000

Trading Symbols:TRBD (EASDAQ)

TURBODYNE UPDATES LEGAL MATTERS

Carpinteria, CaliforniaAugust 18, 2000Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.
(EASDAQ:TRBD) announces developments in several legal matters that are currently pending.

TST vs. Turbodyne

As previously reported on February 18, 2000, one materials vendor from Pacific Baja bankruptcy has filed a suit against Turbodyne and several other
defendants as guarantors of the debt. TST, Inc. filed suit on March 13, 2000 for approximately $1.5 million plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The suit is in the discovery phase.

Heartland Financial v. Turbodyne

On May 8, 2000, Heartland Financial, a service provider whose claim was heard in the Pacific Baja bankruptcy, filed for arbitration against Turbodyne
for approximately $465,000 plus interest, costs and attorney's fees. This matter was previously heard and ruled upon by the bankruptcy court in the Pacific Baja bankruptcy proceedings. The Company's
position is that the bankruptcy court's decision is final and that the matter has already been adjudicated. Heartland maintains that it has the right to sue Turbodyne outside of the bankruptcy
proceedings. The matter has been assigned to Fresno for arbitration to determine the jurisdictional issues and the parties are still in the process of choosing an arbitrator.

Jamison v. Turbodyne

On January 21, 2000, Jamison Capital, a service provider for Pacific Baja, filed a complaint against Turbodyne demanding payment of $115,000, plus
interest and costs, in New Jersey State Court. The matter was later removed to federal court. On August 15, 2000 Turbodyne was awarded summary judgment against Jamison Capital. The Court
awarded Jamison a "break-up" fee of $21,000. Turbodyne has already paid $10,000 of the $21,000 total judgment. Jamison Capital has 30 days from August 15, 2000, in which to file an appeal.

Willett v. Turbodyne

On June 21, 2000, the Company was served with a demand for arbitration by David Willett, a former employee. The Company did not oppose the demand.
Mr. Willett is seeking approximately $45,000 plus 200,000 stock options plus consequential damages allegedly suffered. The parties are in the process of choosing an arbitrator. The matter is
expected to go to arbitration on or before February 13, 2001.

Turbodyne
Technologies, Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines plus the
development and manufacturing of high-tech assemblies for electrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.'s headquarters is located in Carpinteria, CA; the
European business location is Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:

Kenneth
Fitzpatrick, VP Group FinanceInvestor Relations: (805) 684-4551
Markus Kumbrink, Turbodyne Europe Investor Relations: +49-69-69-76-73-13

Except
for the historical information contained in this news release, the matters discussed herein include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties.

---

QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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 30, 2016

t1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

151909 (28)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151909

COA: 325804

Wayne CC: 02-000893-FC

HAROLD STEVEN VARNER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

27, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                         CERTIFICATION OF THE CHAIRMAN
             PURSUANT TO SEC.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, the Chairman of NYMEX Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted
pursuant to sec.906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q"), filed
concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                          By:       /s/ VINCENT VIOLA
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Vincent Viola
                                            Title:  Chairman

Date: August 14, 2003
<PAGE>

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
             PURSUANT TO SEC.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of NYMEX Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a),
as adopted pursuant to sec.906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Form
10-Q"), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

                                          By:   /s/ LEWIS A. RAIBLEY, III
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Lewis A. Raibley, III
                                            Title:    Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 14, 2003
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 12, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-12-00191-CR

____________

BRIAN BUTLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1331775

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a guilty plea to robbery with bodily injury. In accordance with 

the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to 

confinement for two years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. 

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the 

court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no right of appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is included in the record on 
2

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports the trial court’s certification. 

See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jamison.

Do Not Publish—TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
#### James A. Alloway, Jr., Appellant, v Syracuse University, Respondent.

[773 NYS2d 690]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Edward D. Garni, J.), entered December 20, 2002. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for breach of contract.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appéaled from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Green, J.P., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The amounts disclosed in the financial data summary should be read in
conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          30,253
<SECURITIES>                                    98,898
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               154,456
<PP&E>                                         264,403
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,935
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 398,702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,429
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   398,702
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,881
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,559
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,790
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,907)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,574)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,233)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,333)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification of the Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Mitchell Steinhause, Chairman of NYMEX Holdings, Inc., hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June
30, 2004 of NYMEX Holdings, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NYMEX Holdings,
Inc. Dated: August 6, 2004 /s/ Mitchell Steinhause  Name: Mitchell Steinhause
Title: Chairman
          (Principal
Executive Officer)