alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(n)

Contract No. 117117

 

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA (Natural)

TRANSPORTATION RATE SCHEDULE FTS AGREEMENT DATED February 25, 2000

UNDER SUBPART G OF PART 284 OF THE FERC'S REGULATIONS

 

1.	SHIPPER is: NORTH SHORE GAS COMPANY, a LDC.

2.	(a)	MDQ totals: 7,000 MMBTU per day.

	(b)	Service option selected (check any or all):

[ ] LN	[ ] SW	[ ]NB

3.	TERM: April 1, 2000 through April 30, 2005.

4.	Service will be ON BEHALF OF: [X] Shipper or [ ]Other:

5.	The ULTIMATE END USERS are customers within any state in the continental U.S.; or (specify state)________________________________________________.

6.	[ ] This Agreement supersedes and cancels a _____________ Agreement dated ___________.

[X]	Service and reservation charges commence the latter of:

(a) April 1, 2000, and

(b) the date capacity to provide the service hereunder is available on Natural's System.

[ ]	Other:_____________________________________________
Order entered November 12, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00709-CR

WILLIAM AUTREY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-16130-Q

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On October 23, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

clerk’s and reporter’s records had not been filed. On November 6 and 8, 2013, we received the 

reporter’s record and exhibits, and on November 8, 2013, we received the clerk’s record. 

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the October 23, 2013 order 

requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31(a)

I, Thomas M. Patrick, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peoples Energy Corporation;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

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

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

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

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

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

 

Date:  May 10, 2005

  /s/  Thomas M. Patrick
JOHN F. OSBORN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0902

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 22, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County.

James B. Fensom, Judge.

John F. Osborn, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
**SERVICER
      CERTIFICATION**






I,
      Steven
      R. Lambert, certify that:




1.           I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
      required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
      10-K of Nissan Auto Receivables 2006-C Owner Trust (the “Exchange Act Periodic
      Reports”);




2.           Based
      on my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
      required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report
      is
      included in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports;




4.           I
      am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Servicer and based
      on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the Servicer
      compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation
      AB,
      and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the Servicer
      has
      fulfilled its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material
      respects; and




5.           All
      of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
      asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment
      of
      compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
      be
      included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
      Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
      report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material
      instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
      this
      report on Form 10-K.




In
      giving
      the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
      to me
      by the following unaffiliated party:  Wells Fargo Bank, National
      Association.




Date:                      June
      29, 2007




Steven
      R.
      Lambert


President
      and Chief Executive Officer of


Nissan
      Motor Acceptance Corporation
THE STATE OF SOUTH C AROLINA In The Supreme Court

Vickie Rummage, Employee, Petitioner,

v.

BGF Industries, Employer, and Great American Alliance Insurance Co., Carrier, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2022

- 000003

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal f rom The Workers' Compensation Commission

Opinion No. 28166 Heard June 6, 2023 – Filed July 26, 2023

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Andrew Nathan Safran, of Columbia
, for Petitioner

. David Alan Wilson, of Wilson & Englebardt, LLC
, of Greenville
, for Respondent s.

PER CURIAM: This Court granted Vickie Rummage's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals in Rummage v. BGFIndustries
, 434 S.C. 441, 865 S.E.2d 380 (Ct. App. 2021)

. We now dismiss the writ on the basis it was improvidently granted.

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and HILL, JJ., concur.
#### Kevin K. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-6494.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 28, 2003.

Decided Aug. 12, 2003.

*247Kevin K. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Johnson, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Johnson has not made the requisite showing. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.*
175 La. 729

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles GASPER.

No. 31985.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 31, 1932.

Johnston Armstrong, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., and Eugene Stanley, Dist. Atty.,- J. Bernard Cocke and Chandler C. Luzenberg, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., all of New Orleans, for the State.

OVERTON. J.

Defendant is charged in the first count of a bill of information with the larceny of an automobile, of the value of $200, and, in the second count, he is charged with receiving the automobile, knowing, at the time, that it was stolen. He was acguitted on the first count, but convicted on the second, and sentenced to the penitentiary.

Defendant, through his counsel, has filed a brief and has argued the case orally in this court. In his brief and in his argument, counsel urges that there is no evidence whatever to support a conviction of receiving stolen property.

The evidence adduced on the trial is in the record, but it has not been brought here by means of a bill of exception to any ruling of the court. In fact, there is no bill of exception in the record, no assignment of error, no error patent upon the face of the record, and not even a motion for a new trial. Therefore there is nothing which this court is authorized to review.

The verdict and the sentence are affirmed.
#### BLANKS v. TARVER et al.

No. 4416.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 5, 1933.

John C. Hollingsworth, of New Orleans, and W. E. McBride and A. K. Goff, Jr., both of Ruston, for appellant.

Hudson, Potts & Bernstein, of Monroe, for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

This suit arises out of the same accident which was the basis of the demand in the case of Mrs. Lucy Buie Price v. F. H. Tarver et al. (La. App.) 148 So. 450, this day decided, the present case being consolidated with the Price Case for the purpose of trial and argument. All the issues in the ease have been concluded by the judgment in the Price Case, except the quantum of damages.

Mrs. Blanks was confined to the hospital in Monroe for two days because of her injuries and was only removed from the hospital over the protest of the physicians in charge of her case ‘because of lack of means’to continue her there. After leaving the hospital, she was confined to her bed at home for ten or twelve days. She suffered a severe injury to her right shoulder which, according to the physicians, is the cause of neuritis which, since the accident, has attacked her in that spot. She suffered particularly from shock and is unable to control herself now when riding in a car. In addition to the injury to her shoulder, she received bruises and contusions on the head, right knee, and a cut on the right knee. She suffered so much from nervousness that her family physician was compelled to administer morphine on his first two visits and a narcotic on his third.

The lower eoui-t allowed for these injuries and for incidental damages and expenses the sum of $597.25. We do not think this amount excessive.

The judgment of the lower court is accordingly affirmed; defendant to pay all costs of both courts.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 September 29, 2014

h0922

Order 

Clerk

September 29, 2014

148805(15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148805

COA: 319355

Wayne CC: 09-024170-FC

MARK DEWITT YANCEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 29, 2014 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**THE PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Penn Traffic Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ending October 28, 2006, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Gregory J. Young, President & Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

# (1)     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

#  

# (2)     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

#  

 
| /s/ Gregory J. Young                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Gregory J. Young                      |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                  |   |
| May 14, 2008                |   |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6362 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6362

  To amend Public Law 87-788 (commonly known as the McIntire-Stennis 
   Cooperative Forestry Act; 16 U.S.C. 582a-7) to provide for equal 
   treatment of the District of Columbia with respect to funds made 
                       available under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2022

                Ms. Norton introduced the following bill

                            January 10, 2022

                Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend Public Law 87-788 (commonly known as the McIntire-Stennis 
   Cooperative Forestry Act; 16 U.S.C. 582a-7) to provide for equal 
   treatment of the District of Columbia with respect to funds made 
                       available under that Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``McIntire-Stennis Act District of 
Columbia Equality Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR PURPOSES OF FUNDING UNDER 
              MCINTIRE-STENNIS COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ACT.

    Section 8 of Public Law 87-788 (commonly known as the McIntire-
Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act; 16 U.S.C. 582a-7) is amended by 
inserting ``the District of Columbia,'' after ``include''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


     <ARTICLE> 5
     <LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
     OF J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF MAY 1, 1999, AND
     IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
     </LEGEND>
     <RESTATED>
     <MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

     <S>                             <C>
     <PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
     <PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1999
     <CASH>                                             168
     <SECURITIES>                                       250
     <RECEIVABLES>                                    4,268
     <ALLOWANCES>                                       103
     <INVENTORY>                                      6,078
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,841
     <PP&E>                                           8,351
     <DEPRECIATION>                                   2,889
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,658
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,924
     <BONDS>                                          6,821
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
     <PREFERRED>                                        464
     <COMMON>                                         3,219
     <OTHER-SE>                                       3,799
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,658
     <SALES>                                          7,258
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,532
     <CGS>                                            5,292
     <TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,984
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   117
     <LOSS-PROVISION>                                    13
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 151
     <INCOME-PRETAX>                                    267
     <INCOME-TAX>                                       100
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                167
     <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
     <CHANGES>                                            0
     <NET-INCOME>                                       167
     <EPS-BASIC>                                     0.62
     <EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31(a)****RULE 13a – 14(a)/15d – 14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Peter J. Burlage, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peerless Mfg. Co.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating tothe registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during theperiod in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) [Not Applicable]  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;and  (d) Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reportingthat occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or otheremployees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.       /s/ Peter J. Burlage         Peter J. Burlage    President and Chief Executive Officer    Date: November 13, 2006