alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10(f)-2


Mobil Natural Gas Inc.
                                                         12450 GREENSPOINT DRIVE
                                                       HOUSTON, TEXAS 77060-1991


June 26, 1996
                                                               CERTIFIED, RETURN
                                                               RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mobile Gas Service
P.O.B. 2248, 2828 Dauphin Street, Mobile, AL 36652

RE:      Creation of New Marketing Company Owned by Mobil Natural Gas Inc. and
         PanEnergy Trading and Market Services, Inc.

Dear J. Harris Oswalt:

Effective August 1, 1996, Mobil Natural Gas Inc. (Mobil) and PanEnergy Trading
and Market Services, Inc. (PanEnergy) anticipate that they will begin
conducting the marketing activities related to their respective natural gas and
electric power assets through a new jointly owned Limited Liability Company
which will be doing business as PanEnergy Trading and Market Services, L.L.C..
The following contract which you have with Mobil is included in the assets to
be assigned by Mobil to this new marketing company.

Mobil Contract No.:  S-6650, dated 11/01/91; between Mobil and Mobile Gas
Service

As of August 1, 1996, the contact information for PanEnergy Trading and Market
Services, L.L.C. (PanEnergy) will be as follows:

                                   PanEnergy Trading and Market Services, L.L.C.
                                   Attention:  Sr. Vice-President
                                   10777 Westheimer
                                   Houston, Texas 77042
                                   Phone:  713/260-1800
                                   Fax:  713/260-6511
<PAGE>   2
In accordance with the terms of the referenced contract, Mobil hereby requests
your consent to assign the contract to PanEnergy effective August 1, 1996, by
so indicating in the space provided below and returning one executed original
of this letter to the undersigned at the letterhead address.  If you have
questions, please do not hesitate to call me direct at 713/775-2361.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Larry A. Wall, Jr.

Larry A. Wall, Jr.

Agreed and consented to this 31st day of July, 1996.

By: /s/ Gerald S. Keen
Title:  Vice President
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

July 17, 2009 

s0714 

Order 

 

July 17, 2009 

138824 

TIMOTHY PIERRON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138824 

 COA: 282673 

Wayne CC: 99-920324-DM 

KELLY PIERRON, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 3, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties are 

directed to include among the issues to be briefed whether: (1) the defendant’s unilateral 

decision to enroll the children in a school district sixty miles from their former school 

district and from their father’s home resulted in a change in the custodial environment; 

(2) the “clear and convincing evidence” or “preponderance of the evidence” standard 

governed the defendant’s burden of proof; (3) the defendant demonstrated that the school 

change was in the children’s best interests; and (4) the children’s preference for the 

Howell school district was “reasonable.” 

We further ORDER that the parties maintain the status quo with respect to the 

children’s continued enrollment in the Grosse Pointe school district, and that trial court 

proceedings are stayed pending the completion of this appeal. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to place this case on the October 2009 session 

calendar for argument and submission. Appellant’s brief and appendix must be filed no 

later than August 21, 2009, and appellee’s brief and appendix, if appellee chooses to 

submit an appendix, must be filed no later than September 11, 2009. 

 The Children’s Law Section and the Family Law Section of the State Bar of 

Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae, to be filed no later than September 25, 

2009. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented 

may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae, with such briefs to be 

filed no later than September 25, 2009.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50741 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. SERGIO ROSALES-MARTINEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-206-ALL Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appeal ing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Sergio Rosales-Martinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by A lmendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

October 26, 2009 

1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

139235 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139235 

 COA: 276593 

Wayne CC: 06-006406-01 

TERRANCE BAILEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2009 

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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report
on Form 10-K/A (the Report) for the period ended June 1, 2004 of Ruby Tuesday,
Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, I, Samuel E. Beall, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |                                                                     
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Samuel E. Beall, III                                            
| | Samuel E. Beall, IIIChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Gary L. Dreher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.       /s/ Gary L. Dreher         Gary L. Dreher    Chief Executive Officer    November 14, 2005
Exhibit 99.2
**Written Statement of the ChiefFinancial Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350**
     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, theundersigned Chief Financial Officer of Whitehall Limited, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBof the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
*/s/ Kay Carter*
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4902

To extend the temporary increase in payments under the Medicare Program 

for home health services furnished in a rural area. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2004

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon (for himself, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, 

Mr. BURR, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KIND, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. MCHUGH, 

Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. SHUSTER, 

Mr. TOWNS, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma, Mr. STENHOLM, 

Mr. BASS, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. RENZI, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. 

UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. ROSS, Mr. NEY, Mrs. EMERSON, and Mr. 

ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To extend the temporary increase in payments under the 

Medicare Program for home health services furnished 

in a rural area.

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 ‘‘Medicare Rural Home 

5 Health Services Improvement Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 4902 IH 

1 SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY MEDICARE 

2 PAYMENT INCREASE FOR HOME HEALTH 

3 SERVICES FURNISHED IN A RURAL AREA. 

4 Section 421 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Im5 provement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 

6 108–173; 117 Stat. 2283; 42 U.S.C. 1395fff note) is 

7 amended—

8 (1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘ONE9 YEAR’’ and inserting ‘‘TEMPORARY’’; and 

10 (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘2005’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘2007’’.

Æ
11005.

#### Thompson *v.*Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

Jenkins, P. J.

Under the law of this particular ease, as fixed and determined by this court *(Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.*v. *Thompson,*20 *Ga. App.*706, 93 S. E. 299), the question is not whether the special agent had agreed with the applicant to advance for him the first premium called for by the policy of insurance, but whether he had actually done so. The plaintiff admits that the applicant' himself did not pay this premium. The evidence is in conflict as to whether or not the agent had promised the applicant to advance it for-him; but there *126is no evidence which can be taken to dispute the testimony for the defendant to the effect that no such advance by the agent had in fact been made; nor is there any evidence going to show that the company had accepted an obligation of the agent on behalf of the applicant in lieu of such payment by the applicant, since the policy was sent to the agent for delivery only on the agent’s statement that the applicant had himself made payment. The court, therefore, committed no error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant.

Decided April 8, 1920.

Action on insurance policy; from city court of Wayeross •—• Judge Crawley. September 15, 1919.

See same case, 23 *Ga. App.*421.

*Parker &*Parker, for plaintiff.

*Parks, Reed & Garrett,*for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4868 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4868

    To direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a test to 
 determine the costs and benefits of requiring jet-propelled aircraft 
 taking off from Newark International Airport, New Jersey, to conduct 
            ascents over the ocean, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2004

 Mr. Ferguson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a test to 
 determine the costs and benefits of requiring jet-propelled aircraft 
 taking off from Newark International Airport, New Jersey, to conduct 
            ascents over the ocean, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TEST OF AIRCRAFT OCEAN ROUTING.

    (a) In General.--In order to examine an option for reducing 
aircraft noise over communities in New Jersey, the Secretary of 
Transportation shall conduct a 6-month test to determine the costs and 
benefits of requiring jet-propelled aircraft to conduct ascents after 
taking off from Newark International Airport, New Jersey, over the 
ocean.
    (b) Commencement Deadline.--The Secretary shall commence the test 
under this section not later than 45 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act.

SEC. 2. REPORT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to Congress 
a report on the results of the test conducted under section 1.
    (b) Contents.--The report shall include an analysis of the effects 
on noise reduction of ocean routing of aircraft taking off from Newark 
International Airport and any recommendations and comments of the 
Secretary concerning ocean routing of air carrier aircraft taking off 
from Newark International Airport.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

                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 on Form 10-K of Monmouth
Capital Corporation (the "Company")  for  the fiscal year   ended
December 31, 2003  as filed  with   the Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the date  hereof (the "Report"), Eugene W. Landy,
as President  of  the  Company,  and Anna  T.  Chew,   as   Chief
Financial    Officer,   each hereby certifies,   pursuant  to  18
U.S.C.  (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section)  906  of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that,  to  the  best  of their
knowledge:

(1)  The  Report fully complies with the requirements of  section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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








By:    /s/ Eugene W. Landy
Name:  Eugene W. Landy
Title: President
Date:  March 12, 2004




By:    /s/ Anna T. Chew
Name:  Anna T. Chew
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  March 12, 2004
[1] 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CRIMSON YACHTS, etc., ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-0334-WS-C 

 ) 

M/Y BETTY LYN II, etc., et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the motion of BLyn II Holding, LLC (“BLyn”) 

to strike. (Doc. 150). The plaintiff and third-party defendants declined the opportunity to 

respond, (Doc. 152), and the motion is ripe for resolution. 

 The deadline for moving for leave to amend the pleadings was September 11, 

2009. (Doc. 86 at 2). The plaintiff answered BLyn’s counterclaim in July 2009, and the 

third-party defendants answered the third-party complaint the same month. (Docs. 77, 

78). BLyn moved for leave to amend its counterclaim and third-party complaint on 

September 11, 2009, (Doc. 92), which motion was granted. (Doc. 97). BLyn filed its 

amended pleadings on October 2, 2009. (Docs. 98, 99). The plaintiff and third-party 

defendants never responded, until June 23, 2010. (Docs. 146, 147). The motion to strike 

followed. 

When, as in this case, the time for amendment as of right has passed, Aa party may 

amend the party=s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse 

party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

The plaintiff and third-party defendants have filed no motion for leave to file pleadings 

out of time, and that omission alone requires the grant of BLyn’s motion. 

Moreover, even had such a motion been filed, the amended pleadings were filed 

after the deadline imposed by the Rule 16(b) scheduling order, and such A[a] schedule 

Case 1:08-cv-00334-WS-C Document 155 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 2
[2] 

shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); 

accord Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly, the plaintiff and third-party defendants must first show good cause for their 

failure to comply with the scheduling order. Id. at 1419 (A[B]ecause Sosa=s motion to 

amend was filed after the scheduling order=s deadline, she must first demonstrate good 

cause under Rule 16(b) before we will consider whether amendment is proper under Rule 

15(a).@). “This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule could not 

‘be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Id. at 1418 (quoting 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes). The plaintiff and third-party defendants 

have not addressed this standard and have thus necessarily failed to satisfy it. 

For the reasons set forth above, BLyn’s motion to strike is granted. The amended 

pleadings, (Docs. 146, 147), are stricken. 

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 2010. 

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00334-WS-C Document 155 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000837893
<NAME> 88APP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         287,408
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               338,917
<PP&E>                                       4,841,519
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,143,136
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,037,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,037,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,037,300
<SALES>                                        246,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               253,595
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  201,819
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,776
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             51,776
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    51,776
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
10918.

#### Davisboro Fertilizer Co. *v.*Wyatt.

Decided April 7, 1920.

Jenkins, P. J.

There were sufficient facts, necessarily within the knowledge of the trial judge, to have justified the reinstatement of the claim of the defendant in error, and no abuse of discretion appears. See *Maddox Coffee Co.*v. *McHan,*22 *Ga. App.*198 (2) (95 S. E. 736).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*

*118Levy and claim—motion to reinstate claim; from city court of Sandersville—Judge Jordan. August 1, 1919.

*A. R, Wright,*for plaintiff.

*M. L. Gross,*contra.