alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME, STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS, BALANCE SHEET, AND THE STATEMENT
OF COMMON STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000811156
<NAME> CMS ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        4,021
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      6,070
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,664
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         3,520
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,275
<COMMON>                                             1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        2,653
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              (151)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   2,374
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,119
<PREFERRED>                                         44
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             2,209
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 188
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        4,909
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      563
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         88
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    34
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   3,618
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   15,275
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        1,827
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                53
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,534
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,587
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            240
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   1
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     241
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           138
<NET-INCOME>                                       103
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         23
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       80
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            42
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             114
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70


</TABLE>
#### Henry C. Griffin, Respondent, v. Gustav Ernst, Appellant, Impleaded with Henry Sielleck, Jr.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on 124 Appellate Division, 289.
Affi rmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 20 , 2022.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00105

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF W.A .M.P.

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2 020

- 00197J

ME M ORA NDUM OPI NION

We issu e this opi nion to address ap pellant ’ s issue 2, the sole remaining issue
in this case , in which appell ant challenges his commitment t o the Texas Juvenile Justice Department

. On July 28, 2022, we issued a memorandum opinion overruling ap pellant ’ s issue s 3 and 4, which challenged the l egal and factual
suffic iency of the evi dence supporting the trial court ’ s determin ation tha t appellant engaged in delinquent conduct by committing in January 2020 the second

- degree felony of man sla ughter

. We sus taine d appellant ’ s issue 1 on the grounds that the
trial court ’ s determination order committing appellant to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department wa s insufficiently specific under Family Code section 54.04(f) , and2

remanded the case, abati ng by separ ate order w ith instructions that the trial court make findings comp liant with the Family Code. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(f).

The trial court signed its disposition find ings and order on August 24, 2022

. After the order was received by this cou rt, we requ ested suppl emental briefing from the parties on appellant ’ s issue 2, in which appellant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by committing appellant to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. In re sp on se, appellant ’ s lawyer informed thi s court th at appell ant had
be en deported and argued that issue 2 was no w moot, given that appellant was no
l onger commi tted to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. 1 We agree that issue 2 is moot, given that , d ue to appellant ’ s depo rtation, th is court can no long er p rov ide
the relie f requested, i.e., probation at appellant ’ s home inst ead of commitment to
the Tex as Juvenile Justice Department.
Accordingly, we overrule appellant ’ s issue 2 as moot. Having disposed of all of appellant ’ s issues , we affirm th e j udgment of the tria l court as challenged on appeal.

/s/ Charles A. Spain Justice

Panel consi sts of Just i ces Wise
, S pain
, and Has san

.

1 We requested a response from the State but no response has be en fil ed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe
Line Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David J. Kvapil, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of 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:

      (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

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

/s/   DAVID J. KVAPIL
------------------------
Name: David J. Kvapil
Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 9, 2004

This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
documents 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 Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
I

★

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 423

To amend subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to establish safety

zones around Federal prisons in which certain facilities may not be permitted.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1995

Mr. CLINGER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to

establish safety zones around Federal prisons in which

certain facilities may not be permitted.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMITS FOR TSD FACILITIES NEAR FEDERAL

4 PRISONS.

5 Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is

6 amended by adding the following new subsection at the

7 end thereof:

8 ‘‘(k) FACILITIES NEAR FEDERAL PRISONS.—(1)

9 After the date of the enactment of this subsection, no per10 mit may be issued under this section for the operation of
2

•HR 523 IH1S

1 any new off site hazardous waste incinerator, or any other

2 new off site hazardous waste treatment, storage, or dis3 posal facility if—

4 ‘‘(A) such incinerator or other facility is located

5 within a 2-mile radius of the facility boundary of

6 any Federal prison, and

7 ‘‘(B) an accident, such as a spill, explosion, or

8 accidental release of hazardous substances, at such

9 incinerator or other facility could require evacuation

10 of prisoners or other nearby residents.

11 ‘‘(2) As used in this subsection, the terms ‘new off

12 site hazardous waste incinerator’ and ‘new off site hazard13 ous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility’ mean

14 an incinerator or hazardous waste treatment, storage, or

15 disposal facility—

16 ‘‘(A) which accepts hazardous waste that is not

17 generated at the site at which such incinerator or

18 other facility is located, and

19 ‘‘(B) for which a permit under this section is is20 sued after the date of enactment of this subsection.

21 Such terms shall not include any facility existing on such

22 date of enactment.’’.

Æ
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARKUS J. GRANT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-2188

April 10, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pasco County; Gregory G. Groger, Judge.

Markus J. Grant, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

June 12, 2019

s0605 

# Order

Clerk June 12, 2019

158986

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158986

COA: 336596

Jackson CC: 15

- 004918

- FH

JONATHAN RYAN HASTINGS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Nov ember 27, 2018

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.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT (15)(a)




May 4, 2000



CMS Energy Corporation:


We are aware that CMS Energy Corporation has incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statements No. 33-47629, No. 33-60007, No. 33-61595, No. 33-62573,
No. 333-32229, No. 333-60795, No. 333-63229, No. 333-68937 and No. 333-76347 its
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000, which includes our report dated
May 4, 2000 covering the unaudited interim financial information contained
therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is
not considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.






Very truly yours,

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T I R AT H S I NG H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73448 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 399- 044 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B e f o r e : O ’S C A N N L A I N , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . T i rath S i ng h, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I nd i a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n a l l e gi ng in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. W e h av e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . 

# FI LED OC T 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73448 2 R e v ie w in g f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 32 1 F . 3d88 9, 89 4 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) , we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g S in g h ’s m o tio n b e c au s e it w as fi l ed m ore than seven m on ths af t erthe B IA ’ s N ov em ber 2, 20 07 , order d is m is s in g th e u n d e r ly in g ap p e a l, se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , an dS in g h f a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te th a t h e a c te dw ith th e du e d ilig e n c e r e qu ir e df o re qu itab le to llin g , se e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 3 2 1 F .3 da t 8 9 7 ( e qu itab le to llin g av a ilab le “w h e n ap e titio n e ris prevent ed fr om fi l i ng because of dec ept i on , fr aud, or error, as l on g as the pet i t i on er a c ts w ith du e d ilig e n c e ” ) ; se e al so Si ng h v. G on zales , 4 9 1 F .3 d1 0 9 0 , 1 0 9 6 - 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### Monico Garza v. State

No. 25613.

January 9, 1952.

Hon. Harry M. Carroll, Judge Presiding.

*Pedigo and Wade,*by *Faires P. Wade,*Corpus Christi, for appellant.

*558
      *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, three years.

This appeal was perfected following the effective date of Articles 759(a) and 760(c), Vernon’s Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure.

There are no formal bills of exception and no index of bills of exception contained in the question and answer statement of facts. The only matter submitted for our review is the refusal of the court to grant a new trial because of alleged jury misconduct.

Because of our disposition of the case, a recitation of the facts will not be necessary further than to say that on the trial appellant testified, admitting the shooting but claiming that the pistol was accidentally discharged, while he was engaged in beating deceased off of him with the weapon.

The amended motion for new trial alleged that the jury received new evidence during their deliberations prior to reaching a verdict from the following statements made by their foreman, Yates, to wit:

1. That he (Yates) was an amateur gunsmith, that the pistol in evidence would require a trigger pull of 40 pounds pressure and could not have been accidentally discharged, as testified to by appellant.

2. That he (Yates) had once had an experience similar to the one related by appellant, but that he had called the police instead of personally intervening, as had appellant; and, in his opinion, appellant should have pursued the same course of action.

8. That he (Yates) had had experience as a peace officer and that he knew that a drunk man could be easily subdued without the necessity of shooting him.

To this motion was attached the affidavits of two jurors, each of which supported the first allegation above, reciting that such statement was made by the foreman during their deliberations and prior to reaching a verdict.

The trial court, in overruling the motion for new trial, cer*559tified as follows: “and although it appears that the statements alleged to have been made by Juror Yates were made *as alleged,*it is nevertheless found by the court that such statements were harmless and that such motion should be overruled”.

Here, we have a case where new evidence of a material nature is received by the jury during their deliberations and before reaching a verdict, which requires a reversal. Jones v. State, 136 Tex. Cr. R. 30, 123 S. W. (2d) 656, and cases cited. Adaire v. State, 123 Tex. Cr. R. 605, 60 S. W. (2d) 781, presents a similar fact situation to the case at bar.

For the errors shown, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

In the Interest of B.J., a child. )

___________________________________)

)

M.G. and T.J., )

)

Petitioners, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-4567

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM )

PROGRAM, )

)

Respondents. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed January 16, 2019. 

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit

Court for Collier County; Christine Greider,

Judge. 

Toni A. Butler, of Aldericcio & Butler, LLC,

Naples, and Nico J. Vitale of Nico J. Vitale, 

P.A., Naples for Petitioners.

Meredith K. Hall, of Children's Legal 

Services, Bradenton, for Respondent 

Department of Children and Families. 

Morgan L. Weinstein of Defending Best 

Interests Project, Hollywood, and Sara 

Goldfarb for Respondent Guardian Ad

Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.
- 2 -

KHOUZAM, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Vaccine Design Program Project.
    Date: September 17, 2008.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Kenneth E. Santora, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, NIH/NIAID/DHHS, Room 3146, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2605, 
[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 7, 2008.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-18742 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
#### Emanuel Kuh and Others v. British America Assurance Company.

Motion granted; question certified.
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 of Hirsch  International  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended  January 31,  2003,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Beverly  Eichel,  Vice  President  - Finance,  Chief  Financial  Officer and
Secretary  hereby  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  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 Securities and 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.


                                              /s/ Beverly Eichel
                                              ------------------
                                              Beverly Eichel, Vice President -
                                              Finance, Chief Financial Officer
                                              and Secretary

April 29, 2003

     This  certification  is made solely for the  purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any
other purpose.
The Honorable Karl S. Forester, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern *

District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 07a0298n.06

Filed: April 30, 2007

No. 06-5935

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BETTY A. CALABRACE

Plaintiff-Appellant,

V.

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF

TENNESSEE

Before: MARTIN and MERRITT, Circuit Judges; FORESTER, Senior District

Judge.*

KARL S. FORESTER, Senior District Judge. The Plaintiff-Appellant, Betty A.

Calabrace, filed this action against the Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service alleging that

she was subjected to sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation for engaging in protected

activity causing her to resign from her employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Upon the completion of discovery, the defendant

filed his motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Calabrace’s complaint failed to establish

a prima facie case of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation. The district court granted
2

the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.

Calabrace has appealed the portion of the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant

on her claim for retaliation under Title VII. After carefully considering the record on appeal, the

briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we agree

with the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant. Because the reasoning that

supports the judgment for the defendant on Calabrace’s claim of retaliation has been clearly

articulated by the district court in a thorough and comprehensive opinion, the issuance of a detailed

written opinion by us would be unduly duplicative. Therefore, the judgment rendered by the

Honorable William J. Haynes, Jr., District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, is

AFFIRMED on the basis of the reasoning detailed in his Opinion and Order dated June 8, 2006.