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

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 9, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128407 & (75) 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: 128407 

 COA: 246922 

Wayne CC: 02-005789-01 

DARRELL JERROD PHILLIPS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion to add issue is considered and it is DENIED. 

The application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2004 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. 

KELLY, J., dissents and states as follows: 

The corpus delicti rule for felony murder applies here. It requires the prosecution 

to prove the underlying felony before a defendant’s statement of intent to commit the 

underlying felony can be used against the defendant to establish the felony murder. 

Because that rule was violated, the Court should grant leave to appeal and should 

reconsider People v Hughey, 186 Mich App 585 (1990). 

s1206 

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 9, 2005 

Clerk
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: June 25, 2015 519899

________________________________ In the Matter of CARLOS CELLERI, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

________________________________ Calendar Date: May 5, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ Carlos Celleri, Gowanda, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondents.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Determination confirmed. No opinion. Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ.-2- 519899

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 8132 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 127

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and t hen out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 1.5 $ 127.50 $ 

### 0 $ 127.50 

### 959 $ 122,272.50

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in co mpliance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 122,273



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Co sts:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Repair 84.0 $ 7,140.00 $0 $ 7,140.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explai n warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requiremen ts for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

## Filings Instituting Proceedings

*Docket Numbers:*                     RP22-714-000.                

*Applicants:*                     Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.                

*Description:*                     § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker Filing—Effective May 1 2022 to be effective 5/1/2022.                

*Filed Date:*                     3/23/22.                

*Accession Number:*                     20220323-5139.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. ET 4/4/22.                

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

                    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (                    *https://elibrary.ferc.gov/​idmws/​search/​fercgensearch.asp*) by querying the docket number.                

                    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​efiling/​filing-req.pdf.*                     For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

Dated: March 24, 2022.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-06692 Filed 3-29-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 252 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 252

To congratulate the Sioux Falls Skyforce, of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 
  on winning the 1996 Continental Basketball Association Championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 1996

  Mr. Pressler (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To congratulate the Sioux Falls Skyforce, of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 
  on winning the 1996 Continental Basketball Association Championship.

Whereas the Sioux Falls Skyforce are the 1996 Champions of the Continental 
        Basketball Association, a professional basketball league consisting of 
        12 teams from around the country;
Whereas the Sioux Falls Skyforce defeated the Fort Wayne Fury, of Fort Wayne, 
        Indiana, 4 games to 1 in the best-of-seven championship series;
Whereas the 1996 Continental Basketball Association Championship is the first 
        championship in the 7-year history of the Sioux Falls Skyforce;
Whereas the Sioux Falls Skyforce players exemplify the virtues of hard work, 
        determination, and a dedication to developing their talents to the 
        highest levels; and
Whereas the people and businesses of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and the 
        surrounding area have demonstrated outstanding loyalty and support for 
        the Sioux Falls Skyforce throughout the 7-year history of the team: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) congratulates the Sioux Falls Skyforce and their loyal 
        fans on winning the 1996 Continental Basketball Association 
        Championship;
            (2) recognizes and commends the hard work, determination, 
        and commitment to excellence shown by the Sioux Falls Skyforce 
        owners, coaches, players, and staff throughout the 1996 season; 
        and
            (3) recognizes and commends the people of Sioux Falls, 
        South Dakota, and the surrounding area for their outstanding 
        loyalty and support of the Sioux Falls Skyforce throughout the 
        7-year history of the team.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered March 26, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00003
- CV BCH DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND BLANCHARD HOMES, LLC, Appellant s V. LAKEVIEW HEIGHTS ADD ITION PROPERTY OWNER S' ASSOCIATION AND BARBARA WOHLRABE, App ellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 13
- 05900
- A 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellants’ unopposed motion to file amended brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than April 1, 2014

.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- M IERS JUSTICE
ADDITIVE_TYPE ADDITIVE

ACET ACETIC ACID ACHL ALCOHOL ACID ACID ACIN ACID INHIBITORS ACRT ACID RETARDERS BCO * BEDS * BIOC BIOCIDES BRKR BREAKERS CACL CALCIUM CHLORIDE CLYS CLAY STABILIZERS CO2 CARBON DIOXIDE CRIN CORROSION INHIBITORS DFOMDEFOAMERS DIVA DIVERTING AGENT EMULEMULSIFIERS FECL IRON CONTROL FINS FINES SUSPENDER FLA FLUID LOSS AGENT FRDC FRICTION REDUCERS GELA GELLING AGENTS GELO OIL GELLING AGENT GLST GEL STABILIZER HCL HYDROCHLORIC ACID HF HYDROFLUORIC ACID KCL POTASSIUM CHLORIDE MAPE MAGNESIUM PELLETS MCA MUD CLEANUP ACID MOTHMOTH BALL MSA METHANE SULFONIC ACID MSLV MUTUAL SOLVENTS MSVL * NECL NONEMULSIFIED IRON CONTROL HCL NEFE NONEMULSIFIED IRON CONTROL NEMLNONEMULSIFIER NTGN NITROGEN NTGT * PFCL PARRAFIN CONTROL PHBF PH BUFFERS PHOS PHOSPHATE SALT SALT SCIN SCALE INHIBITORS SFAC SURFACTANTS TROL TRETOLITE U UNKNOWN WGELWATER BASED GEL SYSTEMSWPLY WATER BASED POLYMERS

XLNK CROSS-LINKERS XPL *

*not defined in the original source of data (IHS Energy, 2011, Petroleum Information Data Model (PIDM) 2.5 data management system: IHS, Inc. [Available from IHS, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112.])*not defined in the original source of data (IHS Energy, 2011, Petroleum Information Data Model (PIDM) 2.5 data management system: IHS, Inc. [Available from IHS, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112.])*not defined in the original source of data (IHS Energy, 2011, Petroleum Information Data Model (PIDM) 2.5 data management system: IHS, Inc. [Available from IHS, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112.])
Exhibit 32.2





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 Broadcaster, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Blair Mills, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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/ Blair Mills                                                   
|Blair Mills,
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)



Date:  May 20, 2008







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Kenneth WHEATON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick GLEBE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-35554

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 6, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed December 08, 2017

Michael Charles Kahrs, Attorney, Kahrs Law Firm, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellant

Paul D. Weisser, Senior Counsel, AGWA—Office of the Washington Attorney General (Olympia), Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee

*649Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Wheaton appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for two counts of second-degree rape and one count of felony harassment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

1. It was not objectively unreasonable or contrary to clearly established law for the state court to conclude that Wheaton’s right to a public trial was not violated given the absence of any evidence that (1) the trial judge ordered the courtroom closed or (2) the public was wholly excluded due to space limitations. *United States v. Withers,*638 F.3d 1055, 1063 (9th Cir. 2011).

2. Wheaton’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is procedurally defaulted because he did not fairly present it to the Washington Supreme Court. *Cooper v. Neven,*641 F.3d 322, 326 (9th Cir. 2011). Wheaton also failed to raise the claim in his federal habeas petition until his reply brief. *See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes,*37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,113
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,651
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,296
<INVENTORY>                                      2,255
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,056
<PP&E>                                           6,486
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,820
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,547
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,899)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,613
<SALES>                                          5,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,634
<CGS>                                            3,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,836)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,853)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,853)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Hipolito Cruz DIAZ, a/k/a Pirana, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7523

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 27, 2018

Jose Hipólito Cruz Diaz, Appellant Pro Se. Chan Park, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Hipólito Cruz Diaz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 *331denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Diaz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           517,451
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      10,037
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 747,835
<CASH>                                          12,842
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           2,653,587
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         138,398
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,114,672
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,964,252
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 116,306
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           45,670
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     271,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,114,672
<PREMIUMS>                                     221,751
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             33,443
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (4,149)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   5,914
<BENEFITS>                                     205,446
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     10,675
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            18,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,938
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,394
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,394
<EPS-BASIC>                                     287.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   287.88
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>