alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 1 of 24 Pg ID 3073
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 2 of 24 Pg ID 3074
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 3 of 24 Pg ID 3075
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 4 of 24 Pg ID 3076
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 5 of 24 Pg ID 3077
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 6 of 24 Pg ID 3078
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 7 of 24 Pg ID 3079
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 8 of 24 Pg ID 3080
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 9 of 24 Pg ID 3081
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 10 of 24 Pg ID 3082
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 11 of 24 Pg ID 3083
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 12 of 24 Pg ID 3084
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 13 of 24 Pg ID 3085
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 14 of 24 Pg ID 3086
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 15 of 24 Pg ID 3087
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 16 of 24 Pg ID 3088
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 17 of 24 Pg ID 3089
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 18 of 24 Pg ID 3090
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 19 of 24 Pg ID 3091
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 20 of 24 Pg ID 3092
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 21 of 24 Pg ID 3093
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 22 of 24 Pg ID 3094
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 23 of 24 Pg ID 3095
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 124 Filed 11/14/11 Pg 24 of 24 Pg ID 3096
PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 97-6306

________________________ D. C. Docket No. 97-T-476-N WALTER HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus JOE S. HOPPER, Commissioner of Alabama Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

_________________________ (April 17, 1997) Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, COX and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:2 Appellant Walter Hill, an Alabama inmate convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, challenges on appeal th e district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 assault upon the constitutionality of electrocution as a means of execution. The State of Alabama intends to execute Hill by means of electrocution on May 2, 1997. On March 31, 1997, Appellant Hill filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama charging that the scheduled electrocution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Among other relief, the complaint sought to enjoin Appellee Joe S. Hopper from employing electrocution to carry out Hill’s death sentence. By order dated April 10, 1997, the district court dismissed the complaint as an improper successive habeas petition. We affirm. In Felker v. Turpin , 101 F.3d 95, 96 (11th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 450 (1996), we held that a prisoner may not circumvent the rules regarding second or successive habeas petitions by filing a § 1983 claim. Appellant Hill acknowledges that he has filed a previous federal habeas petition. SeeHill v. Jones , 81 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir.), reh’g and suggestion for reh’g en banc denied , 92 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 967 (1997). As Hill’s § 1983 cruel and unusual punishment claim constitutes the “functional equivalent” of a second habeas petition, the district court was subject to the law applicable to successive habeas petitions. Felker , 101 F.3d at 96. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill’s request for relief because Hill had not applie d to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition.3 AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL A. FREEMAN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 09-10518

HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

BLAINE LAFLER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES AND (2)

DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District

of Michigan on September 21, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On February 12, 2009, Petitioner Michael A. Freeman filed a pro se petition for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Portions of the habeas petition were not

legible and Petitioner neither paid the filing fee nor submitted a proper application for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Consequently, on February 19, 2009, United States

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued an Order to Correct Deficiencies in which he

ordered Petitioner to submit (1) an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a

certified statement of his trust fund account and (2) a legible amended habeas petition

with two identical copies.

2:09-cv-10518-PJD-VMM Doc # 13 Filed 09/21/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 125
2

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to set aside Magistrate Judge

Whalen’s order, filed March 9, 2009. In the alternative, Petitioner seeks an extension of

time to comply with the order. He claims that he is indigent and currently unable to

provide the extra copies. Petitioner, however, filed a proper application to proceed in

forma pauperis and a certified statement of his trust fund account and, on May 27, 2009,

the Court granted Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Further,

Petitioner filed an amended petition on June 1, 2009. The Clerk of Court then made the

necessary copies of the petition for service on Respondent. His motion is therefore moot.

Also pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions for summary judgment,

filed February 23 and March 9, 2009, which allege that Petitioner’s state sentence should

be vacated because there is no evidence to support his conviction for second-degree

criminal sexual conduct. To date, Respondent has neither filed a responsive pleading nor

the state court record. The responsive pleading is due on or before December 7, 2009. 

Therefore, Petitioner’s motions for summary judgment are premature. The Court will

reconsider the motions, if necessary, following receipt of the responsive pleading and

record. It will not be necessary for Petitioner to renew his motions. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Petitioner’s motion to set aside Magistrate Judge Whalen’s 

Order to Correct Deficiencies is DENIED AS MOOT;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Petitioner’s motions for summary judgment

are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2:09-cv-10518-PJD-VMM Doc # 13 Filed 09/21/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 126
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copy to:

Michael A. Freeman, #325901

4618 Edwards Avenue

Flint, MI 48505

2:09-cv-10518-PJD-VMM Doc # 13 Filed 09/21/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 127
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1090 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax credit parity 

for electricity produced from renewable resources. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2009 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

tax credit parity for electricity produced from renewable 

resources. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Renewable Energy 

5 Parity and Investment Remedy Act’’ or ‘‘REPAIR Act’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1090 IS

1 SEC. 2. TAX CREDIT PARITY FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED 

2 FROM RENEWABLE RESOURCES. 

3 Subparagraph (A) of section 45(b)(4) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘and be5 fore 2010’’ after ‘‘any calendar year after 2003’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of KKR Financial Holdings LLC(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),William C. Sonneborn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jeffrey B.Van Horn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(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 ofthe Company.

 

 
| August  6, 2009 |                                                                                       |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|            |                                                                                       |
|            | /S/ WILLIAM C. SONNEBORN                                                                   |
|            | William C. Sonneborn*Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)*               |
|            |                                                                                       |
|            | /S/ JEFFREY B. VAN HORN                                                                    |
|            | Jeffrey B. Van Horn*Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
================================================================================

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 Glance, Inc. (the "Company") on  Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the  undersigned, in  the
capacities and on  the  dates  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 to his 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:  November 29, 2007


/s/ Alla Karmazina
----------------------------------
Alla Karmazina
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary
Treasurer, principal accounting
officer and Director
1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 122,985

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

SHIANN E. MARKRUM,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; WILLIAM S. WOOLLEY, judge. Opinion filed April 23, 

2021. Appeal dismissed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(g) and 

(h).

Before POWELL, P.J., GREEN and HILL, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Shiann E. Markrum appeals from the revocation of her probation. 

We granted Markrum's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs as stated under 

Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 47). The State responded to this 

motion for summary disposition and asked this court to affirm the revocation of 

Markrum's probation. Concluding that no remedy is available, we dismiss her appeal.

For crimes committed on January 18, 2018, Markrum pleaded guilty to one count 

of possession of methamphetamine in violation of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5706. The 

district court sentenced her to 18 months' probation with an underlying prison sentence of 

18 months. At a hearing in June 2020, Markrum stipulated to the following probation 
2

violations: testing positive for methamphetamine on a urinalysis, failing to report a 

change of address, failing to report a change of employment, and failing to report to her 

probation supervisor. Markrum asked the court to order a sanction and reinstate her 

probation. Alternatively, Markrum requested a reduced prison sentence.

The district court revoked probation and sentenced Markrum to a reduced prison 

sentence of 15 months, followed by 12 months of postrelease supervision. The journal 

entry awarded jail credit of 257 days. Markrum appealed her probation revocation and 

imposition of her sentence, filing the notice of appeal on the same day as her sentencing 

hearing. Now, Markrum has served the prison sentence and is serving the required term 

of postrelease supervision.

Markrum argues that the district court erred by revoking probation, but her motion 

for summary disposition concedes that a remedy is not available. Even if this court were 

to rule that the district court erred in revoking Markrum's probation and remanded for 

resentencing, the district court could not impose probation because Markrum has served 

her underlying sentence. See State v. Kinder, 307 Kan. 237, 243, 408 P.3d 114 (2018) 

(holding that probation may not be reinstated once the defendant has served the 

underlying sentence). Further, a term of postrelease supervision after the prison term is 

required by statute and the duration of postrelease supervision is set by statute. See 

K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3717(d)(1)(C); State v. Gaudina, 284 Kan. 354, 368, 160 P.3d 854 

(2007). The district court could not provide relief from postrelease supervision if this 

court remanded for resentencing.

For the preceding reasons, we dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. DANIEL C. HARRIS, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 674 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 27th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John Hiner, President and Chief Executive Officer of Crown
Oil and Gas Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (a) | the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      second quarter ended March 31, 2009, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                        

|By:    | /s/ John Hiner                              
|------ | --------------------------------------------
|Name:  | John Hiner                                  
|Title: | President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
|       | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|Date:  | July 1, 2009                                

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

SHERILYN JONES,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-10235-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

CHRISTINE JENSEN,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION

This matter is before the Court on a report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder on March 27, 2009. The magistrate judge recommends granting Defendant’s

motion to dismiss because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, which are moot. As

of today’s date, no party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further

right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).

Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to

independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 8] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 6] is GRANTED.

1:09-cv-10235-TLL-CEB Doc # 9 Filed 04/21/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 22
-2-

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: April 21, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on April 21, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-10235-TLL-CEB Doc # 9 Filed 04/21/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 23
#### Thomas Allan COOK, Appellant, v. Annis Jo COOK, Appellee.

No. 10-94-271-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Oct. 19, 1994.

Rehearing Overruled Nov. 30, 1994.

See also 886 S.W.2d 840.

*839Tom C. McCall, McCall & O’Connell, LLP, Austin, for appellant.

Donald E. Raybold, Clark, Malone, Knapp & Raybold, P.C., Waco, for appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and CUMMINGS and VANCE, JJ.

OPINION

VANCE, Justice.

Annis Jo Cook (Arm) filed suit for divorce against Thomas Cook in McLennan County on August 5, 1994. Thomas filed a plea in abatement alleging that Ann had not been a resident of the county for ninety days preceding her filing. *See*Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 3.21 (Vernon 1993). The court heard and denied the plea in abatement and granted temporary orders under section 3.58 of the Family Code. *See id.*§ 3.58 (Vernon 1993). Thomas attempted to perfect an interlocutory appeal from the orders, asserting that section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows him that right. *See*Tex.Civ.PRAC. *&*Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(4) (Vernon Supp.1994). His primary complaint is that the court abused its discretion in failing to grant his plea in abatement and thus had no authority to issue the temporary orders.1 Ann challenges our jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Absent an express grant, appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders. *New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez,*799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex.1990). Although the Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order that “grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction as provided by Chapter 65,” subsection (g) was added to section 3.58 of the Family Code in 1985, providing:

> (g) An order issued under this section, except an order appointing a receiver, is not subject to interlocutory appeal.

Tex.Civ.PRAC. *&*Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(4); Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 3.58(g). At the same time, an almost identical provision was added to section 11.11 of the Family Code, which provides for temporary orders in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. *Id.*§ 11.11(g) (Vernon 1986). That provision has been interpreted by our Supreme Court as precluding an interlocutory appeal of temporary orders issued under section 11.11. *Dancy v. Daggett,*815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex.1991) (orig. proceeding). We believe that section 3.58(g) should be construed likewise. *See*Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 3.58(g); *see also Post v. Garza, 867*S.W.2d *88*(Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1993, orig. proceeding) (“Specifically, since the trial court’s issuance of temporary orders in a divorce action is not subject to interlocutory appeal, mandamus is an appropriate remedy to challenge such orders.”)

Being without jurisdiction to entertain Thomas’s complaints about the temporary orders issued under section 3.58, we dismiss his appeal. *See id; Dancy,*815 S.W.2d at 549.

1

. Ancillary relief may not be granted when a party has not met the residency requirements of section 3.21. *Mlcoch*v. *Mlcoch,*612 S.W.2d 682, 682-83 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1981, no writ).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7083

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CURTIS L. HAYES, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

District Judge. (3:94-cr-00180-1) 

Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008 

Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Curtis L. Hayes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Curtis L. Hayes, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying reconsideration of its order denying Hayes’ motion 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hayes, 

No. 3:94-cr-00180-1 (S.D. W. Va. May 21, 2008). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 14.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
F-4 No. 333-121220) of Mittal Steel Company N.V. (formerly Ispat International
N.V.) and in the related Prospectus and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-107102) pertaining to the Ispat International N.V. Global Stock Option
Plan, of our report dated February 9, 2005, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Mittal Steel Holdings N.V. and subsidiaries, included in
this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Rotterdam, The Netherlands
March 28, 2005

/s/ Ernst & Young Accountants