alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re: Stephen Thomas YELVERTON, Appellant, *203Wendell W. Webster, in his capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee in Bankruptcy for Steven Thomas Yelverton, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yelverton Farms, Ltd.; Phyllis Edmundson; Charles Edmundson; Deborah Marm, Defendants-Appellees, and Wade H. Atkinson, Jr., Intervenor.

No. 12-2003.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 18, 2012.

Decided: Jan. 4, 2013.

Stephen Thomas Yelverton, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald L. Gibson, Erwin *&*Eleazer, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina; Matthew Scott Sullivan, White & Allen, PA, Kinston, North Carolina, for Appel-lees.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Thomas Yelverton appeals the district court’s orders dismissing a lawsuit filed by Yelverton and prosecuted and ultimately settled by the trustee in Yelver-ton’s bankruptcy estate, and denying Yel-verton’s motion to amend that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Yelverton’s motions to supplement the record, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Yelverton v. Yelverton Farms, Ltd.,*No. 5:09-cv-00331-FL (E.D.N.C. July 17 & Aug. 6, 2012). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2011

MID-STATE TRUST II,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HENRY W. MARTIN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

HENRY W. MARTIN, SR., a/k/a Henry W. Martin;

IOLA MARTIN,

Defendants.

_________________________

REAL ESTATE UNLIMITED, L.L.C.,

Movant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-350-6)

Submitted: September 30, 1997 Decided: October 29, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Graham Sellers,

DELANEY & SELLERS, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Henry Martin seeks to appeal the district court's order remanding a removed action to state court. Martin admits that he was

served with the initial pleading that commenced the state action in

June 1996. He waited until February 1997 to file his notice of

removal, well beyond the thirty-day period set forth at 28 U.S.C.

§ 1446(b) (1994). The district court remanded the matter to the

state court from which it was removed because it was untimely. We

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §

1447(d) (1994); Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., ___ U.S. ___, 64

U.S.L.W. 4379, 4381 (U.S. June 3, 1996) (No. 95-244); Wilkins v.

Rogers, 581 F.2d 399, 403 (4th Cir. 1978). 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. We dismiss the petition for emergency

writ, in which Martin seeks a stay of a state court order, for want

of jurisdiction. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit (23)(b)

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-32229, 333-58686), S-3 (Nos. 333-125553,
333-52560, 333-27849, 333-74958, 333-45556, 333-37241), and S-4 (Nos. 33-60007,
33-55805) of CMS Energy Corporation of our report dated February 16, 2007
relating to the financial statements of Midland Cogeneration Venture L.P., which
appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Detroit, Michigan
February 19, 2007
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Jewett-Cameron Trading Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended February 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date:     September 15, 2006 | Signed:     Daniel R. McDonell             
|---------------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|                             | Daniel R. McDonell, Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1333** 

KENDA R. KIRBY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:13

- cv - 00850

- FL )

Submitted : August 17, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kenda R. Kirby , Appellant Pro Se. Alexander McClure Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenda R. Kirby appeals the dis trict court ’s order denying relief on her civil complaint . The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) ( 2012 ). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Kirby that failure to f ile objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the sub stance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Liberally construed, Kirby’s objections to the mag istrate judge’s report and recommendation specifically challenged the magistrate judge’s failure to address her claims concerning Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681

- 1688 (2012) , and the recommendation to deny relief on her due process and equal protection claims . B y failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation with regard to her other claims, after receiving proper notice , Kirby has waived appellate review of those claims
.3 Turning to the distri ct court’s dismissal of Kirby’s Title IX, equal protection, and due process claims, we have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Kirby v. N .C. State Univ
. , No. 5:13

- cv - 00850

- FL (E .D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2015). We deny Kirby’s motion to allow a new issue on appeal and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional pro cess.
AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 3
                                       TO
                THE 1994 STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR OUTSIDE DIRECTORS

1.   The first sentence of Article III. Shares Available. is hereby amended to
     read as follows:

     "Subject to the provisions of Article XII of the Plan, no more than 158,000
shares of Common Stock shall be issued pursuant to the exercise of Options
granted under the Plan."

2.   Section 5.02 is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

     5.02 Periodic Grants. "Each Outside Director who is reelected to the Board
by the shareholders of the Company at an Annual or Special Meeting of the
shareholders of the Company called for that purpose shall be awarded, effective
as of each such date of reelection, an additional Option to purchase 3,000
shares of Common Stock (the "Subsequent Option")."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          133159
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            2100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 95000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     358536
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           38556
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             38381
<LOANS>                                        1296568
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (28096)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1988746
<DEPOSITS>                                     1761579
<SHORT-TERM>                                     23992
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              26234
<LONG-TERM>                                       2540
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         12679
<OTHER-SE>                                      161722
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 1988746
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 116563
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                24502
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  1527
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                142592
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               56515
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               58599
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            83993
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     4183
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (98)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  64557
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  40173
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       40173
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     26721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.88
<LOANS-NON>                                      10601
<LOANS-PAST>                                       966
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   638
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 27818
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     6109
<RECOVERIES>                                      2204
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                28096
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             28096
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit      31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

* *
* *

|                                                 |                                                                                       |                                        |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|  Date:  May                  21, 2007 |                                                                                       |
|                                            |                                                                                  |                                   |
|                                                 |                                                                                       | /s/ Marvin                  S. Hausman |
|                                                 | Marvin                  S. Hausman                                                         |
|                                                 | Chief                    Executive Officer(Principal Executive                    Officer) |
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23 
                   

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports dated March 4, 1999 (except with respect to the matter discussed in Note
Twenty Two to the consolidated financial statements, as to which the date is
March 31, 1999), included in this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1998, into the Prospectus constituting part of the previously filed Registration
Statement on Form S-3, No. 33-56889.

                             /S/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                             -----------------------
                                 Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 31, 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0231

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

MEGHAN FENOGLIO,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 and

WILLIAM FENOGLIO,

 Respondent and Appellant.

SECOND

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

On May 14, 2020 Nels Swandal was appointed Mediator in this matter. He has 

since declined appointment due to a conflict of interest. His appointment is rescinded.

IT IS ORDERED THAT Daniel B. Bidegaray, whose name appears next on the 

list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Domestic Relations appeals which 

is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this May 15, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: William Fenoglio, Jami L. Rebsom, William Nels Swandal, Daniel B. Bidegaray

05/15/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0231
| (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/      George Paz                            |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   |      | George  Paz                                          |
|                                  |   |      | Chairman,      President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|  Date:       April 29, 2009 |   |      |                                                 |   |
#### In the Matter of Clifford Graham, Petitioner, v Robert Dennison, as Commissioner of New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 518]

Present-Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Feradotto and Fine, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                                              SEAL FLEET, INC.
                                              P.O. BOX 1168
                                              Galveston, Texas 77553
                                              (409) 763-8878


July 23, 1996


Hvide Marine Incorporated
2200 Eller Drive
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Dear Sirs:

     This is to advise you that Seal Fleet, Inc. has waived that portion of the
condition set forth in paragraph 11(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement among
Hvide Marine Incorporated, Seal Fleet, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, and
Thomas M. Ferguson entered into as of March 29, 1996 (the "Agreement") that
requires the exclusion of those shares of Class A Common Stock owned by Three R
Trusts in determining whether the transactions contemplated by the Agreement has
been approved by a majority of the outstanding shares of the Company's Class A
Common Stock.

                                          Very truly yours,


                                          Seal Fleet, Inc.



                                          By:          /s/ John W. Bissell
                                             -----------------------------
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Southside Partners

, * From the 35 th District Court

of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CV1408293

.

Vs. No. 11

- 16

- 00346

- CV * December 21 , 2018

Co llazo Enterprises, LLC, * Memorandum Opinion by Simmons, F.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.;

Simmons, F.J., sitting by assignment;

and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

t here is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The

costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Southside Partners

.
October 10, 1975

The Honorable Ted Butler Criminal District Attorney County of Bexar San Antonio, Texas 78204 Opinion No. H- 714 Re: Whether awrit ofhabeas corpus is available to a proposed patient under an.order for protective custody pursuant to article 556lc-1, V. T. C.S. Dear Mr. Butler: You have requested our opinion concerning whether awrit ofhabeas corpus is available to a proposed alcoholic patient under an order for protective custody. Article 5561c, section 9(c), V. T. C. S., provides that upon the filing ofa petition and a Certificate ofMedical Examination for Alcoholism which states, that it is: the opinion ofthe examining physician that the proposed patient is an alcoholic and because ofhis alcoholism is likely to cause injury to himself or others ifnot immediately restrained, the Judge may order any health or peace officer to take the proposed patient into protective custody.
. . . While section 11 of article 5561~ recognizes the availability of awrit of habeas corpus for one committed to the Texas Commistiion onAlcoholism, it contains no provision which would authorize the issuance of awrit ofhabeas corpus for one inprotective custody under section 9(c). However, article 1, section 12 ofthe Texas Constitution provides: The’writ ofhabeas corpus is awrit of right, and shall never be suspended. The Legislature shall enact laws to render the remedy speedy and effectual. Inour opinion this provision ofthe Texas Constitution provides the remedy ofhabeas corpus to persons held inprotective custody pursuant to article 5561c,

p. 3068The Honorable Ted Butler - page 2 (H-714)

section 9(c). See Code Grim. Proc. arts. 11.01 and 11.64; Ex parte Ramzy, 424 S.W. 2d 220 (TzSup. 1968); Ex parte Calhoun, 91 S.W. 2d 1047 (Tex. Sup. 1936); Strode v. Silverman, 217 S.W. 2d 454 (Tex. Civ. App. --Waco 1949, writ ref’d). Of course, the issue at a habeas corpus hearing is the legality of the custody involved. Clark v. Matthews, 5S.W. 2d 221 (Tex. Civ. App. --San Antonio 1928, no writ). SUMMARY A writ ofhabeas corpus is available to aproposed alcoholic patient held under a writ ofprotective custody. *Very truly yours,

Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:

Opinion Committee jad:

p. 3069
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10614 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RALPH DIXON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CR-287-3-L

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Ralph Dixon has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Dixon was notified of counsel’s

motion and did not file a response. 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The record has not been

adequately developed to consider ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Brewster,

137 F.3d 853, 859 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, counsel’s motion

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-10614

-2-

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.