alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. OR09-5-000]

      ( print page 30290)    
                    Take notice that on February 27, 2009, Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge Energy), with the support of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, submitted a Supplement to the Facilities Surcharge Settlement (Supplemental Settlement) approved by the Commission on June 30, 2004, in Docket No. OR04-2-000.                     *Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership,*                     107 FERC ¶ 61,336 (2004).                

Initial comments on the Supplemental Settlement should be filed on or before June 29, 2009. Reply comments should be filed on or before July 6, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E9-14936 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
96-2803.

#### Coons v. Brownlee.

Logan App. No. 8-95-21.

Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries of Dreams, Inc.



Dreams Franchise Corporation, a California corporation



|            |  |                                                                 
|----------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|subsidiary: |  | Dreams Entertainment, Inc., a Utah corporation d/b/a Farley Art 
|            | 
|subsidiary: |  | Dreams Products, Inc., a Utah corporation d/b/a Mounted Memories



Dreams Retail
Corporation, a Florida corporation d/b/a Field of Dreams



|            |  |                                                                          
|----------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|subsidiary: |  | Dreams Paramus LLC, a Florida limited liability company                  
|            | 
|subsidiary: |  | Dreams/ProSports, Inc., a Florida corporation d/b/a ProSports Memorabilia
|            | 
|subsidiary: |  | FansEdge Incorporated, a Delaware corporation d/b/a ProSports Memorabilia



The Greene Organization, Inc., a
Florida corporation
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 amended quarterly report of Pet Express Supply, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A
for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Renea Yamada, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Diane Egger, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

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

Renea Yamada

Chief Executive Officer

June
15, 2007





/s/ Diane Egger

Diane Egger

Chief Financial Officer

June
15, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Partnership.
 By:
    
    /s/ Freddie M. KotekName:
    
    Freddie M. KotekTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
    
    May 13, 2011
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Valentin HIDALGO-PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50383

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Valentin Hidalgo-Peralta, Texarkana, TX, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Counsel for Valentin Hidalgo-Peralta (Hidalgo) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Hidalgo has not filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersignedhereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in his capacity ofPresident and Chief Executive Officer of Premier Commercial Bancorp (the “Company”)that, to my knowledge, (a) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSBfor the period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (b) that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and theresults of operations of the Company for such period.

 
| Date:  | November 13, 2006 |                                 |   | /s/ Kenneth J. Cosgrove |   |
|--------|-------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |              | Kenneth J. Cosgrove                  |
|   |              | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Premier Commercial Bancorp, and will be retained byPremier Commercial Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No . DA 20 - 04 57 IN THE MATTER OF: K.D.H ., A Youth in Need of Care. **ORDER** Upon consideration of the State’s Unopposed M otion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, submitted by the Appell ee , and good caus e appearing therefor , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the record on appeal shall be supple me nted with the fo llowing Fourth Judicial District Court rec ords : In the Matter ofA . A ., Cause No. DN 19 - 056; In the Matter of R .A ., Cause No. D N 19 - 057; In the Matter of B.A ., Cause No. DN - 19 - 058; State v. [C.A. ] , Cause No. DC 19 - 263 ; and State v. [C.A.] , Cause No. DC - 19 - 675 . IT IS FURTH ER O RDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve all parties of r ecord and the Clerk of Di stric t Court, Miss oula County , with this Order .

KFS Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 10 2020

11/10/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0457
M A N D A T E

TO THE 445TH DISTRICT COURT of CAMERON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 30th day of April, 

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Texas Health and Human Services 

Commission and the Texas 

Department of Aging and Disability 

Services,

Appellants,

v.

Jose P. Baldonado Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00113-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 2008-08-4696-I)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

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 appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 30, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal 

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 14th day of July, 2015.

Cecile Foy Gsanger, CLERK
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132875 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132875 COA: 273561 Bay CC: 05-010642-FH CHRISTOPHER DEE JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 15, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24, 2007

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1417]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLNML0310000 L12200000.BY0000]


Notice of Temporary Vehicle Closure and Restrictions for the 
Robledo Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle Trails During the 2009 Chili 
Challenge; Dona Ana County, NM

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of temporary vehicle closure and restrictions.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice informs the public that the Las Cruces Four-Wheel 
Drive Club is permitted exclusive use of the Robledo Mountains Off-
Highway Vehicle Trails for the 2009 Chili Challenge extreme off-road 
event. The Robledo Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle Trails will be closed 
to all vehicles not registered with the Las Cruces Four-Wheel Drive 
Club for the Chili Challenge. This restriction is necessary to ensure 
public safety and to avoid potential user conflicts during this 
authorized event. The 2009 Chili Challenge was analyzed in 
Environmental Assessment and Finding Of No Significant Impact NM-030-
2008-095. The Robledo Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle Trails are located 
within public land under BLM administrative jurisdiction in:

New Mexico Principal Meridian

T. 21 S., R 1 E.,
    Secs. 6, 19, 20, 29, 30, and 31
T. 22S, R. 1 W.,
    Secs. 1, 2, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36

    Maps showing the location of the Robledo Mountains Off-Highway 
Vehicle Trails are available upon request from the BLM Las Cruces 
District Office.
    Exceptions: The use of motorized vehicles for emergency and law 
enforcement purposes, or for official duties, or as otherwise 
authorized by the BLM are exempt from these restrictions.

DATES: This authorization is effective from Friday, February 20 through 
Sunday, February 22, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John V. Thacker, BLM Outdoor 
Recreation Planner, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005, 
575-525-4306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The authority for this Notice may be found 
at 43 CFR 8364.1. Restricting motorized use of these routes would 
lessen user conflict and provide for a more enjoyable experience during 
the annual Chili Challenge for those motorized users holding a Special 
Recreation Permit.
    Enforcement actions will be taken as necessary in accordance with 
43 CFR 8360.0-7 and 18 U.S.C. 3571. Violations may be punishable by a 
fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months.

Jim C. McCormick, Jr.,
Acting, District Manager.
 [FR Doc. E9-1417 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VC-P
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The  undersigned  hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-H ("Issuer") for the period
ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 14th day of November, 2002.

                                   GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                   PARTNERSHIP II-H
                                   ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Financial Officer
**F.1	Security Incident Response Form**

# FBI CJIS DIVISION INFORMATION SECURITY OFFICER (ISO) SECURITY INCIDENT REPORTING FORM

NAME OF PERSON REPORTING THE INCIDENT: 

DATE OF REPORT:(mm/dd/yyyy) DATE OF INCIDENT:(mm/dd/yyyy)

POINT(S) OF CONTACT (Include Phone/Extension/Email): 

LOCATION(S) OF INCIDENT:  INCIDENT DESCRIPTION: 

SYSTEM(S) AFFECTED: 

SYSTEM(S) AFFECTED (e.g. CAD, RMS, file server, etc.): 

METHOD OF DETECTION:  ACTIONS TAKEN/RESOLUTION: 

**Copies To:**

**ISO@NIGC.GOV**

**And**

****

**John C. Weatherly**

(FBI CJIS Division ISO) 1000 Custer Hollow Road Clarksburg, WV 26306-0102

(304) 625-3660

iso@fbi.gov

06/01/2019

CJISD-ITS-DOC-08140-5.8

F-2
#### FRUIT GROWERS CO-OP. v. CALIFORNIA PIE & BAKING CO., Inc.

Civil No. 2692.

District Court, E. D. New York.

June 24, 1942.

Lord, Day & Lord, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Henry H. Diener, of New York City, for defendant.

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This is a motion by defendant under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for leave to add various railroad companies as third party defendants. It appears that the plaintiff, pursuant to agreement, shipped certain cherries to defendant in New York, shipment being f.o.b. Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. The cherries admittedly arrived in bad condition and, when defendant refused to pay the balance of the purchase price, plaintiff brought this suit. Defendant now seeks to join the railroads over which the goods were shipped, in order to determine all issues in one proceeding.

If the cherries arrived in bad condition, as appears to be the case, the responsibility would seem to be that of the plaintiff or the carrier, so that a simple and expeditious determination of this whole controversy would seem to make desirable the joinder of all parties, if that be possible under the Rules. Were this matter litigated in two separate proceedings, defendant would find itself in the unenviable position of proving the carrier’s freedom from negligence in its action with the plaintiff, and then proving the existence of negligence on the part of the carrier in any subsequent suit brought by it against the carrier.

Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant may move “for leave as a third-party plaintiff to serve a summons and complaint upon a person noj a party to the action who is or may be liable to him or to the plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him.” Whether “the plaintiff’s claim” as used in Rule 14 embraces defendant’s proposed action against the carrier is the question at issue. Undoubtedly Rule 14 was primarily intended to cover the insurer and indemnitor sort of situation, but it is hardly to be so precisely limited.

Here plaintiff sues in contract, whereas defendant asserts a tort claim against the carriers. Yet both are civil actions within the new Rules, and clearly, if the cherries arrived damaged, defendant is seeking merely to transfer to the carriers the liability which is being asserted against it. The situation so closely approximates that of the surety or indemnitor that the case appears reasonably within the scope of Rule 14. Considerable time would be wasted were two separate actions necessary. The responsibility for the damage is *416either that of the plaintiff or the carrier. Much is to be gained by having all parties before the Court. It is moreover by no means certain that plaintiff has no cause of action against the carriers. If the facts, as they develop, should show such a cause of action, the carriers could properly be joined under Rule 14 as persons liable to the plaintiff.

Motion granted.

Settle order on notice.
##### 



Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-29157, 333-102383 and 333-61640 on Form S-8 and Pre-Effective Amendment No.
1 to Registration Statement No. 33-11876 on Form S-4 of Bank of Granite
Corporation of our report dated January 24, 2003, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Bank of Granite Corporation for the year ended December
31, 2002.

|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche
LLP
|                         
|Hickory, North Carolina  

January 24, 2003
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

May 18, 2011 

y0511 

Order 

 

May 18, 2011 

142895 & (13) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142895 

 COA: 302630 

Muskegon CC: 07-055693-FH 

ANTHONY PIERRE OLIVER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

REMAND this case to the Muskegon Circuit Court to enter an amended judgment of 

sentence granting the defendant sentencing credit of eleven months for the period of time 

that he was incarcerated in jail as a condition of probation. His incarceration was 

imposed as part of the sentence in this case, and sentence credit is required in that 

circumstance. People v Sturdivant, 412 Mich 92 (1981), modified in People v Whiteside, 

437 Mich 188 (1991). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are 

not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6616

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARTHUR LEE WALKER, a/k/a Ace, a/k/a Florida,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief 

District Judge. (3:13-cr-00011-GMG-RWT-1; 3:14-cv-00077-GMG-RWT; 

3:13-cr-00023-GMG-RWT-2; 3:14-cv-00078-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Lee Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia; 

Jarod James Douglas, Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Lee Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Walker 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 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeal s San Antonio, Texas

February 2, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00335

- CR

Josiah David LEWIS, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR9616 Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on January 2, 2018 . The appellant’s first motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to February 1, 2018 . On February 1, 2018 , the appellant filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to file the brief until March 2, 2018 , for a total extension of almost sixty days. The motion is GRANTED. THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME THAT THE APPELLANT WILL BE GRANTED . The Appellant’s brief must be filed by March 2, 2018

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal o f the said court on this 2nd day of February, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court