alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 11-13

IN RE: RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

O R D E R

Pursuant to the authorityof 38 U.S.C. §§ 7263(b) and 7264(a) and consistent with 28 U.S.C. §

2071(b),theCourt has adopted a revision to Rule 30(b)(Citation ofSupplementalAuthority) ofitsRules

of Practice and Procedure.Aproposed revisionwas published for public comment byMisc. No. 06-13

(September 30, 2013).TheCourt has benefitted from public comment and from the views of its Rules

Advisory Committee. Accordingly, it is 

ORDEREDthatthe attached revision oftheCourt'sRule30(b)CitationofSupplementalAuthority

is hereby published and is effective this date.

DATED: December 23, 2013 FOR THE COURT:

/s/Gregory O. Block

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court

Attachment
 ATTACHMENT TO MISCELLANEOUS ORDER NO. 11-13

 REVISED RULE 30(b)

RULE 30. CITATION OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY

*****

(b) CitationofSupplementalAuthority. When pertinent and significant authoritycomesto the

attention of a partyafterthe party's brief has been filed or after oral argument but before decision, a party

shall promptly file notice with the Clerk and serve all other parties. In no case will supplemental

authority–pertinent and significant or otherwise–be accepted bythe Clerk for filing fewer than 7 days

preceding a scheduled oral argument,withoutleave oftheCourt. The notice shallsetforth the citation(s)

to the authorityorinclude a copyofthe supplemental authorityif it is not readilyavailable in a reporter

system. The notice shall refer to the page of the brief or to a point argued orally to which each citation

pertains, and shallstatewithout argumentthe reasonsforthe supplemental citation(s). Anyresponse shall

be made promptly and shall be similarly limited.
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

          - [Docket No. GT00-34-004]

Take notice that on April 16, 2001, Dauphin Island Gathering Partners (DIGP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed below to become effective April 1, 2001. DIGP states that these tariff sheets reflect changes to shipper names and Maximum Daily Quantities (MDQ's).

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 9

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 10

DIGP states that a copy of this filing are being served on its customers and other interested parties.

                    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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. 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, protests and interventions 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.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr., 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10317  Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, H. Douglas Chaffin, certify that:

 

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of MBT Financial Corp.; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                             |   |                                  |
|----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Date:  April 29, 2019  |   |                                  |   |
|                             |   | /s/ H. Douglas Chaffin           |   |
|                             |   | H. Douglas Chaffin                    |   |
|                             |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JERRY LEWIS JONES, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3645 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed April 3, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Jerry Lewis Jones, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Jones v. State, 60 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Jones v. State, 901 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (table decision); Anderson v. State, 779 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Harris v. State, 777 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

MORRIS, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM,JJ., Concur.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Iron Eagle Group, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Jason M. Shapiro
                                 ----------------------
                                 Jason M. Shapiro
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer

August 15, 2011
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,763-01
EX P ARTE RODRIS DENARD WEBST ER, Appl icant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 14-0150X IN THE 71 DISTRICT COURT ST F ROM HARRISON COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s co n v i cted of murder and sentenc ed to fifty

year s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary beca use counsel ref

used to call hi s witnesses an d gave him bad advice
. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief
. In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court sha ll order trial counsel to r espond to A pplicant’s claim of ineffe ctive assistance of2

counsel. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)
. I f the trial court e lects to hold a hea ring , it shall determine whe ther Applica nt is indig ent. I f Applicant is indige nt an d wi shes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law in reg ard to Applicant’s claim t hat hi s plea was involuntary
. T h e trial court shall also make any other findings of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The i s sues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order
. A supplemental transcr ipt cont ai n i n g al l aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of this order
. Any extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: J uly

3, 2019 Do not publish
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-41287 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MAURICIO BLANCO-FORTUNA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CR-363-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mauricio Blanco-Fortuna appeals the 7 2-mont h sentence imposed following his conviction for being illegally present i n the United States following

a p ri o r d e portation subsequent to a felony conviction. He contends that the district court e r red by imposing a 16-level en h a n c e ment under § 2L1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines based on his prior conviction for s tatutory rape under Georgia Code Annotated §16-6-3. Specifically, Blanco-Fortuna argues that his prior offense does not satisfy the “g e n e r i c , contemporary meaning” of the U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D J uly 5, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-41287 Document: 00512297467 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2013No. 12-41287

enumerated offenses of “statutory rape” or “sexual abuse of a minor” because the statute of conviction prescribes a three-year age differential b etween the victim and the defendant, rather than four years. As Blanco-Fortuna concedes, his sole argument is effectively foreclosed by

our decision in United States v. Rod r ig uez , 7 11 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), petition for c ert. filed , No. 12-10695 (U.S. June 6, 2013). In Rodriguez , we applied a “plain-meaning” appro a c h t o determine t h e “generic, contemporary meaning” of “statutory rape” and “sexual abuse of a minor” and concluded that the generic definitions of those offense categories do not include any specific age differential. Id. a t 5 5 9

- 6 2 & n.28. We expressly rejected the claim that the statute at issue in that c ase – § 22.011(a)(2) of the Texas P enal C ode – did not satisfy the “g e n e ri c , c o n t e m p o r ary meaning” of “sexual abuse o f a minor” because the statute prescribed a three-year i n stead o f a four-year age differential between the victim and the defendant. Id. at 562 n.28. Blanco-Fortuna asserts that he is raising the issue solely to preserve it for further review. In light of Rodriguez , the district court did n o t e rr in imposing a 16-level enhancement under § 2L1.2 based upon Blanco-Fo r t una’s prior conviction for statutory rape under § 16-6-3(a). Consequently, the mot i o n f o r summary disposition is GRANTED, a nd the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-41287 Document: 00512297467 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2013
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles P. Chessman, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered December 4, 1985, convicting him of murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the first degree, after a nonjury trial and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress inculpatory statements made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Suppression of the defendant’s confession was properly denied in the absence of any credible evidence that it was the product of coercion or false promises by law enforcement personnel *(see, People v Armstead,*98 AD2d 726). The record herein fails to support the defendant’s contentions that his *645guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that his counsel’s assistance was inadequate. The proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and his counsel’s assistance was meaningful *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000915

29-OCT-2014

08:46 AM
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### M A N D A T E

TO THE 437TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on June 3, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or

reverse your judgment between

Robert F. Crunk, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04

- 14

- 00810

- CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2013CR0707

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on August 17, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1766** 

MICHAEL MUNOZ , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
SUNTRUST BANK , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville

. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:15

- cv - 00119

- RLV

- DCK )

Submitted : January 20, 2017 Decided: January 26, 2017

Before AGEE , WYNN , and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael Munoz , Appellant Pro Se. Matthew William Krueger

- Andes , Robert R. Marcus, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael Munoz appeals the district court ’ s order granting SunTrust Bank’s motion to dismiss and dismissing Munoz’s civil
action for lack of prudential standing . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the dis trict court. Munoz v. SunTrust
Bank , No. 5:15

- cv - 00119

- RLV

- DCK (W.D.N.C. Jun e 3, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the deci sional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-57376 of Duke Energy Field Services, LLC on Form S-3 of our report dated
March 12, 2003, (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's changes in methods of accounting
for goodwill and derivative instruments to conform to Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards Nos. 142 and 133, respectively, as described in Note 2)
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Duke Energy Field Services, LLC
for the year ended December 31, 2002.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 21, 2003
Exhibit 13.2



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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Stora Enso Oyj (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Esko Mäkeläinen, Senior Executive Vice President, Finance, Accounting and Legal Affairs, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: April 8, 2005



/s/    ESKO MÄKELÄINENEsko Mäkeläinen Senior Executive Vice President, Finance, Accounting and Legal Affairs, and Chief Financial Officer




A signed original of this
certification 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.
Exhibit 31.2



Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)



I, Vincent C. Klinges, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Logility, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;



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



(a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                         |  |     |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 13, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Vincent C. Klinges 
|                         |  |     |  | Vincent C. Klinges     
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer