alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 149 (Friday, August 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44982-44983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17628]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER06-510-002]


Energy Endeavors, LLC; Notice of Filing

July 25, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 14, 2008, Energy Endeavors, LLC tendered 
for filing Order No. 697 Compliance Filing and Application for Category 
1 status pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.

[[Page 44983]]

Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 
copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#460003140509282a2f282315333636293432062023342568212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="15535047565a7b797c7b70466065657a676155737067763b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 4, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17628 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Cite as State v. Oliver , 2016-Ohio-3016.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

V.

DWAYNE A. OLIVER

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 15 MA 0097

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion for Reconsideration

JUDGMENT: Denied.

APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee Attorney Paul Gains Mahoning County Prosecutor Attorney Ralph Rivera Assistant Prosecutor 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor Youngstown, Ohio 44503

For Defendant-Appellant Dwayne Oliver, Pro-Se Inmate No. 53486060 P.O. Box 10 Lisbon, Ohio 44432

JUDGES:

Hon. Mary DeGenaro Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Cheryl L. Waite

Dated: May 16, 2016[Cite as State v. Oliver , 2016-Ohio-3016.] PER CURIAM.

{¶1} On March 24, 2016, this Court denied Appellant Dwayne Oliver's first motion for reconsideration from his direct appeal as untimely. State v. Oliver , 7th Dist. 15 MA 97, 2016-Ohio-1250. On April 13, 2016, Oliver filed a "Motion to File Delayed Motion

for Reconsideration Based on Good Cause" and a "Motion of Reconsideration of Opinion and Judgment Entered on March 24, 2016." {¶2} "A motion for reconsideration can be entertained even though it was filed beyond the ten-day limitation provided for by the rule if the motion raises an issue of sufficient importance to warrant entertaining it beyond the ten-day limit." State v. Dew

, 7th Dist. No. 08MA62, 2014-Ohio-4042, ¶ 7. Oliver contends that he mailed his motion to the clerk on January 7, 2016, but has no understanding as to how or why the clerk did not file it until January 19, 2016. {¶3} Oliver contends that he has raised an issue of sufficient importance to justify entertaining his motion for reconsideration beyond the ten day time limit. However, a review of his motions demonstrate that he continues to argue the same assignments of error that he raised in his direct appeal. The purpose of reconsideratio n is not to reargue one's appeal based on dissatisfaction with the logic used and conclusions reached by an appellate court. Victory White Metal Co. v. N.P. Motel Syst. Inc., 7th Dist. 04 MA 245, 2005-Ohio-3828, ¶ 2. {¶4} Because Oliver has failed to meet the requisite time frame and failed to raise a sufficiently important issue, his delayed motion for reconsideration is hereby denied, as is his request for reconsiderati on of this Court's March 24, 2016 decision.

DeGenaro, J., concurs.

Donofrio, P. J., concurs.

Waite, J., concurs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEAN STANLEY HAZEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD HENRY KEGEBEIN, IRIS M.

LOPEZ, and the STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-11384

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss from Lopez and the State of

Michigan. For the reasons set forth in an opinion issued this date,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s complaint is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE except as to Count III against Defendant Kegebein,

which is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Date: August 11, 2009

Copy to:

Dean Stanley Hazel 

1028 N Monroe 

Monroe, MI 48162 

Michael F. Murphy, A.A.G.

2:09-cv-11384-PJD-PJK Doc # 18 Filed 08/11/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 110
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HANNA JABER,

Plaintiff, CASE NUMBER: 09-11610

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY

BOARD OF GOVERNORS,

and DR. PAULA C. WOOD

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. 

On March 7, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. The Court held Plaintiff Hanna

Jaber’s procedural due process rights were not violated when Wayne State University’s

(“WSU”) College of Education Dean Paula C. Wood, without the involvement of the

WSU Board of Governors, revoked Plaintiff’s doctoral degree after an informal

disciplinary hearing, and after concluding Plaintiff plagiarized a substantial portion of her

dissertation. On April 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its

ruling dismissing her Complaint. 

Under E.D. MICH. LR 7.1(h)(3), “the court will not grant motions for rehearing or

reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either

expressly or by reasonable implication.” Accordingly, “[t]he movant must not only

demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons

2:09-cv-11610-VAR-DAS Doc # 61 Filed 04/26/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1198
entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the

defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” Id. “A ‘palpable defect’ is a

defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” DiPonio Const. Co.,

Inc. v. Int’l Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, 739 F.Supp.2d 986, 1004 (E.D.

Mich. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “The decision whether to grant

reconsideration lies largely within the discretion of the court.” Id. (citation and quotation

marks omitted). A motion brought pursuant to LR 7.1 must be filed no later than

fourteen (14) days after entry of the judgment or order. E.D. MICH. LR 7.1(h)(1).

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is untimely; it was filed more than fourteen

days after this Court’s March 7, 2011 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment. However, even if the motion had been timely filed, it does not present a

basis for reaching a different outcome in this case. Plaintiff presents the same issues

ruled on in the Court’s March 7 Order and has not shown that the Court committed plain

error. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: April 26, 2011

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

April 26, 2011.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-11610-VAR-DAS Doc # 61 Filed 04/26/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1199
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Pacific Copper
Corp. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2010 (the “Form
10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirement 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 the Company.





Dated:
June 14, 2010





/s/ Andrew BrodkeyAndrew
      BrodkeyChief
      Executive OfficerPacific
      Copper Corp.





Dated:
June 14, 2010





/s/ Rakesh
      MalhotraRakesh
      Malhotra, C.A.,Chief
      Financial OfficerPacific Copper Corp.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pacific Copper Corp. and will be retained by Pacific Copper Corp. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
1

The court issues this supplemental order of transfer to avoid any dispute as to the

Magistrate Judge’s authority to issue the initial transfer order or whether he may simply

issue a report and recommendation recommending the transfer. Compare In re

Jimenez , 211 F. App’x 297 (5th Cir. 2006) (“The magistrate judge determined that the

petition was successive, and the district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings

and conclusions, ordering transfer of the matter to this court.”) with Jergens v. Brigano,

Nos. 3:97CV348, 3:02CV426, 2008 WL 356494, *1 n. 2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 7, 2008)

(noting that a motion to transfer an alleged successive habeas petition to the Sixth

Circuit is a non-dispositive pretrial motion which may be decided by a Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) without the need for Report and Recommendation

to the District Judge).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAUL AGUIRRE,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 2:09-CV-10394

CARMEN PALMER,

Respondent.

 /

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner Paul Aguirre, has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1988 convictions for third-degree criminal sexual

conduct and second habitual offender which were imposed following a jury trial in the

Washtenaw County Circuit Court. Petitioner was sentenced to 10 to 22 1⁄2 years

imprisonment. The Magistrate Judge has issued an order transferring this case to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive petition.

For the reasons stated in that order, the court agrees that this case should be

transferred to the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive petition.1

 Accordingly,

2:09-cv-10394-RHC-VMM Doc # 3 Filed 02/20/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 58
2

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to transfer this case to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631

and Sims v. Terbush, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[W]hen a prisoner has sought §

2244(b)(3) permission from the district court, or when a second or successive petition

for habeas corpus relief . . . is filed in the district court without § 2244(b)(3) authorization

from this court, the district court shall transfer the document to this court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1631”).

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 20, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

and Paul Aguirre #198266, Deerfield Correctional Facility,1755 Harwood Rd., Ionia,MI

48846 on this date, February 20, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Ware for Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

 (313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-10394-RHC-VMM Doc # 3 Filed 02/20/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 59
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GEORGE J. TORSILIERI,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 100 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of November , 2019, the Petition for Leave to File Petition

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Counsel is DIRECTED to file a

Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 15 days.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated March 10, 2009, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Vignette Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Vignette Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-72877, 333-91767, 333-30242, 333-41482, 333-59358, 333-100566, and 333-107702). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

March 10, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-20674

ANTHONY A. JAMES,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CORRECT OMISSIONS AND

MOTION FOR DESCRIPTIVE LISTINGS OF EXHIBITS AND STIPULATIONS

Before the court are two motions filed by Defendant Anthony A. James: a “Motion

to Correct Omissions from the Record,” and a “Motion for Descriptive Listing of Exhibits

and Stipulations on the Record.” No response is necessary to the motions, and the

court will deny them both. 

In the first motion, Defendant asserts that a portion of the official transcript is

missing, and he requests that the court order that the transcript be “corrected” to reflect

“the full dialogue of comments pertaining to the discussion of a letter.” (Dkt. # 74.) The

court has reviewed the transcript and finds that there is no indication that portions of the

record are missing. The court has also consulted with the court reporter, who has

indicated that the transcript, as filed, is complete and correct. Having no basis to

suggest that the official court record is in error, the court will deny the motion. 

In the second motion, Defendant asks for “a descriptive listing of exhibits and

stipulations that are a part of the record.” (Dkt. # 75.) The court has reviewed the

docket, and no such exhibit list or stipulation list was filed. Nor does the court retain the

2:08-cr-20674-RHC-MKM Doc # 77 Filed 02/03/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 812
C:\Documents and Settings\wagner\Local Settings\Temp\notes6030C8\08-20674.JAMES.Deny.Transcript.ExhibitList.wpd

2

exhibits at the end of a trial; they are instead typically retained by counsel of record. 

There is therefore no basis on which to provide Defendant the relief he seeks. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion to Correct Omissions from the Record”

[Dkt. # 74] and “Motion for Descriptive Listing of Exhibits and Stipulations on the

Record” [Dkt. # 75] are DENIED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 3, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, February 3, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:08-cr-20674-RHC-MKM Doc # 77 Filed 02/03/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 813
#### Ernest EMERSON, Quay Wood, Brian McRae, Glenn Zoch and Lewis di Donato, Appellants, v. H. Scott BORLAND, Appellee.

No. 3-92-237-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

Oct. 14, 1992.

Dan Morales, Atty. Gen., Toni Hunter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for appellants.

Scott Ozmun, Whitehurst, Harkness & Watson, Austin, for appellee.

Before POWERS, ABOUSSIE and B.A. SMITH, JJ.

B.A. SMITH, Justice.

This is a suit for damages against five employees of the State Fire Marshall’s Of*952fice arising out of the arrest of Scott Bor-land by the Trinity County Sheriff’s Department in January 1986. Appellants, the employees, moved for summary judgment based on theories of quasi-judicial immunity to Borland’s state-law claims and federal qualified immunity to Borland’s federal claims. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment. Appellants come before this Court pursuant to section 51.-014(5) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which permits appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court that denies a motion for summary judgment based on an assertion of immunity by an officer or employee of the state. Tex.Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(5) (West Supp.1992).

The Legislature amended section 51.014 in 1989 to permit appeal from an interlocutory order denying summary judgment based on an assertion of immunity. Section 2 of the 1989 amendatory act provides: “This Act applies only to suits *first filed*on or after the effective date of this Act.” Act of June 14, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 915, § 2, 1989 Tex.Gen.Laws 3946, 3947 (emphasis added). The effective date of the amendment was June 14,1989. This suit was first filed on January 26, 1988, nearly 18 months before the effective date of section 51.014(5). Consequently, section 51.014(5) does not apply to this suit. We have no jurisdiction over an appeal from a trial court’s interlocutory ruling unless such order is specifically made appealable by statute. *Cherokee Water Co. v. Ross,*698 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex.1985). Since section 51.014(5) is appellants’ sole basis for invoking this Court’s jurisdiction and it is inapplicable, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6501

RICHARD LEE MCKENZIE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-2578-6-6AK)

Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Lee McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. McKenzie v. South Carolina Dep't of Corr., No. CA-96-2578-6-

6AK (D.S.C. Mar. 3, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ECHOSTAR DBS CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         159,761
<SECURITIES>                                    24,774
<RECEIVABLES>                                  157,944
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,109
<INVENTORY>                                    123,184
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               596,133
<PP&E>                                       1,314,007
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,730,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,145,829
<BONDS>                                      2,028,060
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (462,494)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,730,207
<SALES>                                      1,565,634<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,606,291
<CGS>                                          911,549<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,959,860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               208,716
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                23,342
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             196,390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (562,285)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (131)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (562,416)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (228,733)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (791,149)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> Includes programming revenue.
<F2> Includes costs of programming.
</FN>


</TABLE>