alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
97-233.

#### State ex rel. Rootstown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of the motion for leave to intervene of Ohio Association of Public School Employees, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 4, AFL-CIO, and OAPSE Local 569,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for leave to intervene be, and hereby is, granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6636

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WAYNE DONTA O'NEIL, a/k/a Wayne-Wayne,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-5; 5:11-cv00160-RLV)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Donta O’Neil, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Donta O’Neil seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

 * In the district court, O’Neil argued for an alternate 

construction of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), coram 

nobis, and/or audita querela. He has waived any further 

consideration of these arguments by failing, on appeal, to 

challenge the district court’s reasoning for rejecting these 

alternate constructions.
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that O’Neil has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
| (1)    | The      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,      2009 (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      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the    Report. |

| /s/ E. Renae ConleyE.      Renae ConleyChair      of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer ofEntergy      Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Document

EXHIBIT 10.4

AMENDMENT
TO THE
LAREDO PETROLEUM, INC.
OMNIBUS EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
(amended and restated as of May 20, 2021)


This Amendment to the Laredo Petroleum, Inc. Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated as of May 20, 2021 (the “Plan”), made pursuant to the right to amend reserved in Section 13(a) of the Plan, amends the Plan as follows, effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of Directors:


1. Section 5(b) of the Plan shall be amended and replaced in its entirety with the following:


“(b) The Committee may, from time to time, grant Options, Stock Appreciation Rights, Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units, Stock Bonus Awards and/or Performance Compensation Awards to one or more Eligible Persons selected in its sole discretion. An Eligible Person may be granted more than one Award under the Plan, and Awards may be granted at any time or times during the term of the Plan. The grant of an Award to an Eligible Person shall not be deemed either to entitle that individual to, or to disqualify that individual from, participation in any other grant of Awards under the Plan. Notwithstanding anything in this subsection (b) to the contrary, the Committee may, in its sole discretion, grant a Stock Bonus Award to a director of the Company or an Affiliate in the name of a partnership or limited liability company designated by the director to receive such Award and in which the director owns 100% of the equity interests.”


All other terms and conditions of the Plan shall be unchanged and remain in full force and effect, except to the extent modified by the foregoing.
#### ROTHABAND v. DICKENS.

No. 8901.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Jan. 2, 1954.

Theodore Beezley, Springfield, Mo., for plaintiff.

Neale, Newman, Bradshaw, Freeman & Neale, Springfield, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

In defendant’s motion for a more definite statement, he asks for the following; (1) The exact date when it is claimed the defendant obtained $6,000 from the plaintiff; (2) the circumstances which plaintiff claims constitute fraud; (3) the means employed to obtain the money, and (4) the date when demand was made for the return of the money, and whether same was orally or in writing.

The complaint shows that the alleged fraud was committed “on or about the 4th day of December, 1948.” That is sufficient. The circumstances were that the plaintiff had been declared insane and incapable of managing his *193own affairs, and that the defendant knew, that. Under these circumstances it is" wholly unnecessary to show the means either by which the defendant obtained the money or by which he converted it to his own use. It is unnecessary to set forth in the complaint when plaintiff made demands upon the defendant, even if the law requires him to do so. This information can be obtained by interrogatories.

It follows that the motion for a more definite statement should be and the same hereby is overruled.
#### Liebel & Merle Sales, Inc., Respondent, v Polymer Conversions, Inc., Appellant.

Submitted November 8, 2010;

decided December 21, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### In re: Rodney H. WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

No. 06-6844.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2006.

Decided: June 21, 2006.

Rodney H. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

*335Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Rodney H. Williams petitions for a writ of error pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2000) and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Williams claims the July 29, 2003, opinion issued in his direct appeal relied upon perjurous statements in the record. Because Williams does not have a right to the relief sought, we deny relief. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of error. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Exhibit 12(f)System Energy Resources, Inc.Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges andRatios of Earnings to Fixed Charges2002
2003
2004
2005
2006Fixed charges, as defined:Total Interest
$76,639
$64,620
$58,928
$60,424
$59,931Interest applicable to rentals
3,250
3,793
3,426
3,039
3,914Total fixed charges, as defined
$79,889
$68,413
$62,354
$63,463
$63,845Earnings as defined:Net Income
$103,352
$106,003
$105,948
$111,644
$140,258Add:Provision for income taxes:Total
76,177
75,845
78,013
69,343
54,529Fixed charges as above
79,889
68,413
62,354
63,463
63,845Total earnings, as defined
$259,418
$250,261
$246,315
$244,450
$258,632Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined
3.25
3.66
3.95
3.85
4.05
|                                                       |          |          |          | Exhibit 12(f)
|------------------------------------------------------ | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------------
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|System Energy Resources, Inc.                          |          |         
|Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and |          |         
|Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges                    |          |         
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|                                                       | 1999     | 2000     | 2001     | 2002         
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|Fixed charges, as defined:                             |          |          |          |              
|Total Interest                                         | $147,982 | $118,519 | $138,018 | $76,639      
|Interest applicable to rentals                         | 3,871    | 5,753    | 4,458    | 3,250        
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|Total fixed charges, as defined                        | $151,853 | $124,272 | $142,476 | $79,889      
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|Earnings as defined:                                   |          |          |          |              
|Net Income                                             | $82,375  | $93,745  | $116,355 | $103,352     
|Add:                                                   |          |          |          |              
|Provision for income taxes:                            |          |          |          |              
|Total                                                  | 53,851   | 81,263   | 43,761   | 76,177       
|Fixed charges as above                                 | 151,853  | 124,272  | 142,476  | 79,889       
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|Total earnings, as defined                             | $288,079 | $299,280 | $302,592 | $259,418     
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined         | 1.90     | 2.41     | 2.12     | 3.25         
|                                                       |          |          |          |              
|                                                       |          |          |          |
Exhibit 32(h)



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









(1)
The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.










|/s/ Gary J. TaylorGary J. Taylor
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	March 9, 2004
#### JOHNSON & JOHNSTON ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, and Nikko Materials USA, Inc. (doing business as Gould Electronics, Inc.), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. R.E. SERVICE CO., INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.

No. 2006-1352.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 29, 2006.

ORDER

The appellant(s) having failed to file the required Entry of Appearance form by an attorney admitted to the bar of this court, and having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

PHILLIP RICHARDS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-767

LT Case No. 2015-CF-002828

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed May 2, 2023

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Marion County,

Lisa D. Herndon, Judge.

Phillip Richards, Okeechobee, pro 

se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Alyssa M. Williams, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, HARRIS and PRATT, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Sunrise Solar Corporation (“Sunrise”) because of questions regarding the accuracy of statements by Sunrise Solar Corporation in press releases to investors concerning, among other things, the company's business prospects and agreements.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Sunrise Solar Corporation.

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT June 5, 2009 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on June 18, 2009.

By the Commission.

J. Lynn Taylor,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-13551 Filed 6-5-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
EXHIBIT 23.0


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
 of Armatron International, Inc.:


      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (SEC File No. 2-80846 and SEC File No. 2-80950) and in
the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 2-80846) of Armatron
International, Inc. of our reports dated November 26, 1997 on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Armatron
International, Inc. as of September 30, 1997 and 1996, and for the years ended
September 30, 1997 and 1996, which report is incorporated by referenced or
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




Needham, Massachusetts                  R. J. GOLD & COMPANY P.C.
November 26, 1997
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1180

FRANCIS PIERRE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Office of the Attorney General; ARLINGTON COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURT, The Judges and the Clerk’s Office; WASHINGTON SHUTTLE, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-71-A) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 19, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis Pierre, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Francis Pierre appeals the district court’s order dismissing his attempt to appeal his state action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Pierre v. Virginia , No. CA-02-71-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 15, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ALEX HUAQIANG LEO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee. No. 12-3213 (D.C. No. 2:09-CV-02139-KHV) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ

, MURPHY , and EBEL , Circuit Judges.

In a previous appeal, this court, acting pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38, ordered

Plaintiff-Appellant Alex Huaqiang Leo to pa y Defendant-Appellee Garmin International,

Inc. (“Garmin”) reasonable appellate attorney ’s fees as a sanction for pursuing a frivolous

appeal. Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 46 4 F. App’x 744, 745 -46 (10th Cir. 2012)

(unpublished). This court then remanded the case to the district court to determine

“reasonable attorney’s fees.” Id. at 746. On remand, the district court awarded Garmin

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mate rially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1( G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order a nd judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its pe rsuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit


### January 2, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 fees in the amount of $12,710.90. Leo appeals from that determination.

This court reviews the district court’s de termination of the amount of attorney’s

fees to be awarded for an abuse of discreti on. Cf. Centennial Archaeology, Inc. v.

AECOM, Inc., 688 F.3d 673, 67 8 (10th Cir. 2012) (reviewing amount of fees imposed as

a sanction for discovery misconduct). On appe al, Leo does not argue that the district

court abused its discretion in determining the amount of the fe e award. And this court’s

own independent review of the fee award doe s not reveal any abuse of discretion.

Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’ s decision to award Garmin $12,710.90 in

attorneys’ fees.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1353]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-513-000]


Cyprus Energy Futures, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

January 14, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Cyprus Energy Futures, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure(18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is February 3, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list.They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#05434057464a6b696c6b60567075756a777145636077662b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a5c5f485955747673747f496f6a6a75686e5a7c7f6879347d756c">[email protected]</span></a> 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-1353 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>