alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 25

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Grahame E. Rance, his attorney-in-fact, each with
the power of substitution, for him in any and all capacities, to sign any
amendments to this Report on Form 10-K, and to file the same, with exhibits
thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all that the said
attorney-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Report
has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and
in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

<Table>
<Caption>
SIGNATURE                                   TITLE                                       DATE
---------                                   -----                                       ----


<S>                                     <C>                                <C>
/s/ Grahame E. Rance                    Chief Executive Officer,           September 18, 2001
------------------------------------    President, & Director
Grahame E. Rance

/s/ Christopher J. Amenson              Chairman of the Board              September 18, 2001
------------------------------------
Christopher J. Amenson


/s/ James E. Dixon, Jr.                 Vice President, Finance &          September 18, 2001
------------------------------------    Administration, Chief
James E. Dixon, Jr.                     Financial Officer, Treasurer
                                        Secretary, & Principal
                                        Financial Officer

/s/ Warren W. Andrews                   Director                           September 18, 2001
------------------------------------
Warren W. Andrews


/s/ Peter D. Fenner                     Director                           September 18, 2001
------------------------------------
Peter D. Fenner


/s/ Lawrence A. Bennigson               Director                           September 18, 2001
------------------------------------
Lawrence A. Bennigson


/s/ Louis C. Golm                       Director                           September 18, 2001
------------------------------------
Louis C. Golm


/s/ Alan F. White                       Director                           September 18, 2001
------------------------------------
Alan F. White
</Table>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned, being the Principal Executive Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certifies that the Partnership's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in such Annual
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within
the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:
February 25, 2005

|/s/DAN C. TUTCHERDan C. Tutcher
President and Principal Executive Officer |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
[Cite as Moore v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2010-Ohio-4225.] 

# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215
614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

JAMESON A. MOORE

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Case No. 2010-01832-AD

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On January 28, 2010 and March 16, 2010, plaintiff was ordered to either
pay the $25 filing fee or to file a poverty statement. Plaintiff has failed to comply with
the court order. Therefore, plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant
to Civ.R. 41(B)(1). The court shall absorb the costs of this case.

________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk

cc: Jameson A. Moore Ohio Department of Transportation 2779 Delcane Drive 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43235 Columbus, Ohio 43223

DRB/laa Filed 5/5/10 Sent to S.C. reporter 9/2/10
* Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the

limited circumstances set forth in 5th CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40989

Summary Calendar

ELIJAH W. RATCLIFF, Individually and doing business as Dunbar Bonding

Service,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN S. HOLLEMAN, JR., District Attorney of Polk County, Texas; BILL

RAY NELSON, Sherrif, Polk County, Texas; JOE NED DEAN, District

Judge, Polk County, Texas; FRED EDWARDS, District Judge, Polk County,

Texas; STATE BAR OF TEXAS; STATE OF TEXAS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, State Bar of Texas,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:98-CV-93

April 30, 1999

Before JOHNSON, DUHE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elijah W. Ratcliff appeals from the district court’s order granting

the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment in his pro

se civil lawsuit alleging civil rights violations and other claims.

With respect to all of the captioned defendants other than District

Judges Dean and Edwards and District Attorney Holleman, the district

court did not err in concluding that Ratcliff’s claims were res
2

judicata. See Nagle v. Lee, 807 F.2d 435, 439 (5th Cir. 1987). In a

nearly identical lawsuit filed previously by Ratcliff, the district

court determined that Ratcliff’s claims were barred by the applicable

statutes of limitations. Because this was a final adjudication on the

merits for res judicata purposes, Ratcliff was not entitled to bring

those claims in a subsequent suit. See Steve D. Thompson Trucking, Inc.

v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 870 F.2d 1044, 1045-46 (5th Cir. 1989).

Judges Dean and Edwards were entitled to absolute judicial immunity

for the judicial acts attributed to them by Ratcliff. See Mays v.

Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110-11 (5th Cir. 1996). Further, Ratliff’s

claims against District Attorney Holleman were barred by the applicable

Texas statute of limitations. See Cooper v. Brookshire, 70 F.3d 377,

380, n.20 (5th Cir. 1995); Hickey v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist., 976 F.2d

980, 982 & n. 3 (5th Cir. 1992); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.003

(West 1998).

Ratcliff’s appeal is without merit and is frivolous. Accordingly,

the appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. We caution Ratcliff that any

additional appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the

imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Ratcliff should review any

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise frivolous arguments.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Supersedes SC Reg 1-20 dtd 03/2008
#### THE CHAMPION PAPER *&*FIBRE COMPANY and C. R. McNEELY v. H. D. LEE, R. G. JENNINGS, Individually, and R. G. JENNINGS, EVAN G. JENNINGS and J. G. VOLMER, Executors and Trustees of the Estate of E. H. JENNINGS, Deceased.

(Filed 27 September, 1939.)

Appeal by defendants from *Rousseau, J.,*at April Term, 1939, of TRANSYLVANIA.

Civil action in ejectment, for recovery of damages for alleged acts of trespass and for removal of cloud upon title.

*796From order of compulsory reference defendants appeal to the Supreme Court, and assign error.

Geo. *H. Smathers and D. L. English for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Lewis P. Hamlin and Ralph H. Ramsey, Jr., for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe respective contentions of tbe parties as disclosed by tbe pleadings present similar factual situation to that in No. 162 entitled “The Champion Paper & Fibre Co. *v.*H. D. Lee *et al.,” ante,*244. Tbe finding upon wbicb tbe order of reference is made is tbe same. As in tbat case, we find bere no error in tbe order.

Tbe judgment below is

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0065. CARTER v. STRICKLAND.

Harold L. Strickland brought a negligence action against John G. Carter, in

Carter’s official capacity as Wayne County Sheriff. Sheriff Carter filed this direct

appeal from the trial court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment on the

basis of sovereign immunity. Even though the denial of the motion for summary

judgment was not a final judgment subject to direct appeal within the meaning of

OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), Sheriff Carter asserted that a direct appeal was authorized by

Board of Regents &c. v. Canas, 295 Ga. App. 505 (672 SE2d 471) (2009), where this

Courtfound under the collateral order doctrine that a direct appeal was available from

a pre-trial order rejecting the defense of sovereign immunity. But in Rivera v.

Washington, 2016 WL 1190390 (Ga. March 25, 2016), the Supreme Court overruled

Canas and made clear that the collateral order doctrine does not authorize a direct

appeal from an order denying a motion seeking dismissal of an action on the basis of

sovereign immunity. An appeal from the trial court’s order denying summary

judgment must be brought in accordance with the interlocutory proceduresin OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (b). Rivera, supra. Accordingly, this direct appeal is DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

04/14/2016

April 14, 2016
### Proposed Provision: E2.5. Apply 12.4 percent payroll tax rate on earnings above $250,000 starting in 2024, and tax all earnings once the current-law taxable maximum exceeds $250,000. Do not provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed.

back
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Coverage of Employment or Earnings, or Inclusion of Other Sources of Revenue

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						F3: Expand covered earnings to include employer and employee premiums for employer-sponsored group health insurance (ESI). Starting in 2027, phase out the OASDI payroll tax exclusion for ESI premiums. Set an exclusion level at the 75th percentile of premium distribution in 2027, with amounts above that subject to the payroll tax. Reduce the exclusion level each year by 10 percent of the 2027 exclusion level until fully eliminated in 2037.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3937

___________

Dwight E. Cofer, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Dora Schriro, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

State of Missouri, * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

R. Dale Riley; Terrence K. Lock; James *

Washington; Robert Peura; William D. *

Peterson; Jerry G. Samons; Ron Elkins; *

Tami Adams; Mary Gorman; Don *

Knepp; Bryan Goeke; Steve Long; *

Michael Groose; James D. Purkett; *

Fred Truce; Cranston Mitchell; Pamela *

Ramarez, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 20, 2001

 Filed: August 29, 2001

___________
1The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal following remand, see Cofer v. Schriro, 176 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir.

1999) (per curiam), Missouri inmate Dwight E. Cofer appeals the district court’s1

adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action regarding the free

exercise of his Rastafarian religion. We agree with the district court that the only issue

before it on remand was whether appellees violated Cofer’s First Amendment rights

when he was required to cut his hair as a condition of continuing in the drug-treatment

program at Farmington Treatment Center. See Borchers v. Commissioner, 943 F.2d

22, 23 (8th Cir. 1991). 

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, see Rouse v. Benson, 193

F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review), we conclude that Cofer’s freeexercise claim fails as a matter of law, see O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342,

345, 348, 351-52 (1987); Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1550-51 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, 519 U.S. 874 (1996); Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F.2d 810, 814-16 (8th Cir.

1990). We further conclude that Cofer’s Establishment Clause claim, raised for the

first time in his resistance to summary judgment, was not properly before the district

court. Finally, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint

counsel for Cofer. See Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATIONS BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER RELATING TO THE

ANNUAL REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS



In connection with the Annual Report of Education Management
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R. McKernan, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify in such capacity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



Date: September 13, 2004



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ JOHN R. MCKERNAN, JR.
|John R. McKernan, Jr.    
|Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3071]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM95-4-25-001]


Mississippi River Transmission Corp.; Notice of Compliance 
Filling

February 2, 1995.
    Take notice that on January 30, 1995, Mississippi River 
Transmission Corporation (MRT), submitted for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff 
sheets listed below, with a proposed effective date of January 1, 1995:

Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 212
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 213

    MRT states that the tariff sheets reflected above are being filed 
in compliance with the Commission's January 13, 1995 order in the above 
referenced proceeding. MRT also states that the filing reflects a 
recalculation of the Excess Revenues to be refunded to Rate Schedules 
FTS and FSS customers pursuant to Section 17 of its tariff.
    MRT states that a copy of the filing has been mailed to each of its 
customers and the State Commissions of Arkansas, Illinois and Missouri.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street 
NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All such 
protests should be filed on or before February 9, 1995. 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 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3071 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### In the Matter of Diane Ebercohn-Mauro, Appellant, v Board of Education of the City School District of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

[774 NYS2d 714]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cammer, J.), dated October 22, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the hearing officer’s determination that she was guilty of three specifications relating to unsatisfactory teaching performance was irrational or the result of bias *(see*CPLR 7511; *Matter of Kornit,*49 NY2d 842 [1980]). Moreover, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the penalty of dismissal was neither against a strong public policy nor irrational *(see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York,*94 NY2d 321 [1999]; *Matter of Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, Am. Fedn. of Teachers, AFL-CIO,*304 AD2d 826, *lv denied*100 NY2d 511 [2003]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We  hereby  consent  to  the incorporation by reference in the prospectuses constituting  part of the registration statements on Form S-3 for the CSB Bancorp,  Inc.  Share  Owner Dividend Reinvestment Plan and on Form S-8 for

The  Commercial  &  Savings  Bank  of Millersburg Profit Sharing and 401(k) Savings Retirement Plan and Trust of our report dated March 14, 2001 on the consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash

flows for the year ended December 31, 2000, which report is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CSB Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.





/s/   Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP

Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP



Columbus, Ohio

March 31, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 31

         CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Kenneth C. Lowe, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003 of Transition Auto Finance II ("TAF II");

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 TAF II as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.       TAF II's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
the Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for TAF II 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 TAF II,
         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 TAF II's disclosure control's
         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 TAF II's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during TAF II's most
         recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
         likely to materially affect, TAF II's internal control over financial
         reporting; and

5.       TAF II's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to TAF II's
auditors and the audit committee of TAF II's board of directors:

         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 TAF II'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 TAF II's internal
         control over financial reporting.

Date: October 31, 2003

/s/ Kenneth C. Lowe
----------------------------
Kenneth C. Lowe
Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer