alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 7, 2011 

t1130 

Order 

 

December 7, 2011 

143603 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143603 

 COA: 296915 

Jackson CC: 08-004311-FH 

KEONDO SHAMAAR TAYLOR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 28, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of People v Vaughn (Docket No. 142627) is pending on appeal before this Court and 

that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02653-CMA

CITADEL CROSSING ASSOCIATES, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, and

NESBITT DENVER PROPERTY, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CENTIMARK CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of

Remand (Doc. # 9). The Court no longer possesses jurisdiction over this case, and

therefore denies the Motion. 

On October 28, 2011, the Court issued an Order remanding the case to the

District Court, County of El Paso, Colorado, because Defendant had not established

subject matter jurisdiction. The Court transmitted the documents to El Paso County

District Court that same day. (Doc. # 7.) Therefore, the Court was divested of

jurisdiction before Defendant filed its November 23, 2011 motion for reconsideration. 

See, e.g., 16 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 107.42 (3d ed.

2011) (collecting cases and stating that “[o]nce a district court certifies such a remand

order to state court, it is divested of jurisdiction and may not take any further action on

the case”). Absent jurisdiction, the Court cannot reconsider its Order remanding the

Case 1:11-cv-02653-CMA Document 10 Filed 11/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

case. See, e.g., Adams v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 08-cv-01567, 2008 WL 4831425, at *1

(D. Colo. Nov. 4, 2008) (unpublished) (citing Whiddon Farms, Inc. v. Delta and Pine

Land Co., 103 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1311 (S.D. Ala. 2000) (denying motion to reconsider

because court was divested of jurisdiction when it entered remand order)); 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(d) (“An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed

is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise”).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to reconsider (Doc. # 9)

is DENIED.

DATED: November 30 , 2011

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02653-CMA Document 10 Filed 11/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1187 

To require the Architect of the Capitol to develop a plan to reduce carbon 

dioxide emissions from the Capitol complex, with the goal of achieving 

carbon neutrality at the complex by December 31, 2020. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 23, 2007 

Mr. KERRY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To require the Architect of the Capitol to develop a plan 

to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the Capitol complex, with the goal of achieving carbon neutrality at 

the complex by December 31, 2020. 

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 ‘‘Clean Capitol Act of 

5 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLEAN CAPITOL COMPLEX PLAN. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act, the Architect of the Capitol 

2 

•S 1187 IS

1 shall develop a plan to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide 

2 from the Capitol complex, with the goal of achieving car3 bon neutrality at the complex by December 31, 2020. 

4 (b) METHODS OF REDUCTION.—In developing the 

5 plan under subsection (a), the Architect of the Capitol 

6 shall provide for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions 

7 from the Capitol complex through— 

8 (1)(A) measures to make the complex more en9 ergy efficient; 

10 (B) increasing the use of energy conservation 

11 measures at the complex; and 

12 (C) the use of onsite and offsite renewable 

13 sources of energy at the complex; or 

14 (2) if none of the measures described in para15 graph (1) are practicable, as determined by the Ar16 chitect of the Capitol, the purchase of carbon dioxide 

17 emission offsets for use by the complex. 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 8052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2406]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Saybolt LP, as a Commercial Gauger 
and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as a 
commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Saybolt LP, 4871 Sunrise Dr., suite 102, Martinez, CA 
94553, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and 
petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs 
purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 
151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory 
analyses and gauger services should request and receive written 
assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or 
gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the 
specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved 
to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by 
calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9efdfceeb0f2fffcf6efdefaf6edb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcdfdecc92d0ddded4cdfcd8d4cf92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. 
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as commercial 
gauger and laboratory became effective on March 6, 2007. The next 
triennial inspection date will be scheduled for March 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commercial Gauger Laboratory Program 
Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 
20229, 202-344-1060.

    Dated: January 31, 2008.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. E8-2406 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Lebert BIHM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LYKES BROS. STEAMSHIP CO. Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 174, Docket 28044.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 12, 1963.

Decided Nov. 12, 1963.

Thomas J. Doyle, New York City, N. Y. (Cooper, Ostrin, DeVarco & Acker-man, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Arthur M. Boal, New York City (Boal, McQuade & Fitzpatrick, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and KAUFMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment in open court.

See also D.C., 213 F.Supp. 899.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 6, 2008*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.224 Security Credit** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez 

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00376-WJM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. EXECUTIVE RECYCLING, INC.,

2. BRANDON RICHTER, and

3. TOR OLSON,

Defendants.

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER RETURNING GOVERNMENT’S EXHIBIT NOS. 1000 and 1001

 During the jury trial in the above-captioned case the Government submitted for

the record Exhibit Nos. 1000 and 1001. Exhibit No. 1000 was described as the hard

copy of the video-taped deposition of Edmond Fung, with the portions that were actually

played in court indicated; and Exhibit No. 1001 was described as the hard copy of the

video-taped deposition of Gary Tam, with the portions that were actually played in court

indicated.

Color copies of the Government Exhibit Nos. 1000 and 1001 were made, by the

courtroom deputy, for defense counsel and given to Lucy H. Deakins, Esq. on the 13th

day of trial, December 19, 2012.

The court does not keep original exhibits from hearings or trials. Therefore,

Government’s original Exhibit Nos. 1000 and 1001 shall be returned to Government’s
2

counsel, along with a copy of this Order. These exhibits are subject to the same

Stipulation and Order Regarding Custody Of Exhibits entered on December 21, 2012.

Dated this 9th day of January 2013.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________ 

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 We, Andrew F. Jacobs, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Phillip A. Reinsch, Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Capstead Mortgage Corporation (the Company), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:  1.
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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: April 26, 2005
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ ANDREW F. JACOBSAndrew F. JacobsPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: April 26, 2005
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ PHILLIP A. REINSCHPhillip A. ReinschSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
 A signed original 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.
Chief J udg e L y nch is rec used fr om this case and did pa rticipate in this matter. * 

# U nit ed Sta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s

For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 07-2159
AL AN S. NOONA N,
Pla int if f, Ap pe lla nt,

v
. STAPL ES, I

NC.,
Def endant, Appe llee.

Be fore L y nch, Chief Judge , * To rr ue lla , B ou din , L ipe z an d H ow a rd , Ci rc uit Judg e s.

Order of Court Entered: F ebruary 13, 2009

I n lig h t o f th e p a n e l' s g r a n t o f r e h e a r in g a n d n e w o p in io n f il e d th is d a y , th e p e ti ti o n f o r en banc r ehea

ring is denied a s m o o t , without prejudice to a ny new pe tition addressed to the ne w decision.

B y the Court :
/s/ Ri char d Cushing Donova n, Clerk

cc: Hon. Mor

ris E. L asker , Ms. Sarah Thornton, Clerk, Unit ed S tates District Court for the District
o f M a s s a c h u s e tt s , M s
. We n d y Si b b is o n , M r
. D a n ie l G e lb , M r
. Ri c h a r d G e lb , M s
. A r ie l C u d k o w ic z, Ms. Pratt, Mr. Robert Messing er, Ms. S tamenia Tz oug anatos, Ms. Gail Gelb, Ms. J ennife r Sera fy n, & Ms. Kr ist a

Pr a tt.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00358

- CV

Harald Thiel and Heather Thiel v. Fred W. Rusteberg, Charles Willette Jr., Diann M. Bartek, and International Bank of Commerce
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2015

- CCL

- 01215

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the app eal are adjudged against appellant s

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. October 24, 2019
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 189 (Monday, September 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 56587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22762]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 24, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 
Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. BHCB Holding Company, to become a bank holding company by 
acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Black Hills Community 
Bank, N.A., a de novo bank, both of Rapid City, South Dakota.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. First Artesia Bancshares, Inc., Artesia, New Mexico, to merge 
with AmFin Holding Company, and thereby indirectly acquire voting 
shares of AmBank, both of Silver City, New Mexico.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 24, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-22762 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-46]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-46 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: October 7, 2008.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 61031)          ( print page 61032)          ( print page 61033)          ( print page 61034)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. E8-24398 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 8, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.209 Treasury Securities** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### S. V. SMITH, Appellant, v. MIDCOAST INVESTMENT COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Clair A. Davis, of St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Charles J. Schuh, Jr., of St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for appellant.
EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO SECTION 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the
undersigned, Denise Hawkins, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|(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.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Denise Hawkins 
Denise Hawkins
Vice President and Controller
(Principal Financial Officer)
Date:  July 22, 2005

A signed original 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.
**Exhibit 32.1**

Certification ofCEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I certify that this periodic report containing theissuer’s financial statements fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))and that information contained In this periodic report fairly presents in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theissuer.
|        |   | By:    | /s/ Keith C Robbins                |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   |   | Keith C. Robbins                   |
|   |   |   | President, Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   | March 8, 2007                      |

 

----
BTU_2014.03.31_EX.10.1






Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE
1998 STOCK PURCHASE AND OPTION PLAN FOR KEY EMPLOYEES OF 
P&L COAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION




 WHEREAS, P&L Coal Holdings Corporation, n/k/a Peabody Energy Corporation (the “Company”) adopted and maintains the 1998 Stock Purchase and Option Plan for Key Employees of P&L Coal Holdings Corporation, as amended from time to time (the “Plan”), and all capitalized terms used but not defined herein are defined in the Plan;
 
     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10 of the Plan, the Board of Directors has the right to amend the Plan, and the Committee has the authority to amend the terms and conditions applicable to outstanding Grants so long as such amendment does not adversely affect the Participant’s rights under the Grant; and 


     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has authorized and directed that the Plan be amended to provide that neither the Board of Directors nor the Committee may take actions to re-price Options granted under the Plan. 
  
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of March 12, 2014, as follows: 


 1.  Section 10 of the Plan is hereby amended by inserting the following paragraph at the end of such Section 10: 


Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, but subject to the provisions of Section 8 and Section 9, neither the Board of Directors nor the Committee shall be permitted to (i) amend an Option granted under the Plan to reduce its exercise price; (ii) cancel an Option granted under the Plan and re-grant an Option with a lower exercise price than the original exercise price of the cancelled Option; (iii) cancel an Option granted under the Plan in exchange for cash or another equity award; or (iv) take any other action (whether in the form of an amendment, cancellation or replacement grant) that has the effect of re-pricing an Option granted under the Plan.


 2.  In all other respects, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.  


	
		
	 
	PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION

	 
	 

	 
	By: /s/ Sharon D. Fiehler                                         

	 
	Sharon D. Fiehler

	 
	Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
#### DADE COUNTY HOSPITAL and Bituminous Casualty Co. v. DILLON and Florida Industrial Commission.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
#### J. R. McKINLAY et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF STARKE, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

*921J. Ollie Edmunds, of Jacksonville, for appellants. .

A. S. Crews, of Starke, for appellee.

.PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for appellee.