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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

B.D.and J.D.,

Petitioners,

v. OP 21-0335

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, HONORABLE ROD SOUZA,Presiding,

Respondent. 

### JUL 20 2021
Bovven Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of Montana ORDER

Petitioners B.D.and J.D.,via counsel,seek a writ ofsupervisory control to reverse an order of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, in Cause Nos.DN-18-411 and DN-19-194,that denied their motions to intervene. The cases underlying this proceeding are two dependent neglect cases in which the children have been placed in foster care and adjudicated Youths in Need ofCare pursuant to § 41-3-437, MCA. Petitioners maintain the District Court erred in concluding that Petitioners,the foster parents ofthe youths who are the subject ofthose proceedings,are not entitled to intervene in those matters under § 41-3-422(9)(b), MCA. Thus, they ask this Court to take supervisory control over the District Court in these cases. Pursuant to Article VII,Section 2(2),ofthe Montana Constitution, this Court may exercise supervisory control over other courts. The procedure for a petition for such writ is found within M. R. App. P. 14. Pertinent to our disposition of the present petition, M.R.App.P. 14(6)provides in part, "Ifa petition for an extraordinary writ or for a writ ofsupervisory control is filed with respect to any proceeding pending in the district court, the petition and any exhibits relating to a ruling ofthe district court must be served upon the districtjudge against whose ruling it is directed and upon all parties." 07/20/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0335In this instance, Petitioners served their Petition upon the District Court, the

presiding Judge, and their own co-counsel. They failed to serve any ofthe parties to the underlying case. Petitioners' failure to comply with the mandatory provisions ofRule 14(6) leaves this Court withoutjurisdiction to entertain the matter. Mont. Power Co. v. Mont. Dep't of Pub. Serv. Regulation, 218 Mont. 471, 479, 709 P.2d 995, 999 (1985)(holding that this Court acquires no jurisdiction to entertain and determine an appeal if the mandatory statutory provisions are not complied with)(citing In re Malick's Estate, 124 Mont. 585, 228 P.2d 963 (dismissing an appeal where the appellant failed to serve notice ofappeal as required by statute)). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ ofsupervisory control is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County,CauseNos.DN-18-411 and DN-19-194,and the Honorable Rod Souza,presiding. DATED this 

### ZJD day ofJuly,2021.

Justices

2
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran 

On March 15, 1995, by Executive Order 12957, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iran. On May 6, 1995, the President issued Executive Order 12959, imposing more comprehensive sanctions to further respond to this threat; on August 19, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13059, consolidating and clarifying the previous orders; and on September 28, 2010, I issued Executive Order 13553 to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957.

                    Because the actions and policies of the Government of Iran continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared on March 15, 1995, must continue in effect beyond March 15, 2011. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Iran. Because the emergency declared by Executive Order 12957 constitutes an emergency separate from that declared on November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, this renewal is distinct from the emergency renewal of November 2010. This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                    and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 2011-5729

Billing code 3195-W1-P
**EXHIBIT 32.b**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund IV L.P.(the “Fund”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2009 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the general partner of thegeneral partner of the Fund’s general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after dueinquiry:

 
| (1)    | The  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15  of the Securities and 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 Fund. |

 

 
| Date:               |                         |
|---------------------|------------------------------|
| July 14,  2009 | /s/ Marc  N. Teal       |
|                |                         |
|                | Marc.  N. Teal               |
|                | Principal  Financial Officer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fundand will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
TALKING TO KIDS

ABOUT ALCOHOL

5 CONVERSATION GOALS

Research shows that parents are 

the #1 reason young people decide 

not to drink. So, start talking to 

your children about alcohol before 

they start drinking—as early as 9 

years old. Even if it doesn’t seem 

like it, they really do hear you. 
1. Show you disapprove of underage drinking.

Over 80% of young people ages 10-18 say their parents 

are the leading influence on their decision to drink or 

not drink. So they really are listening, and it’s important 

that you send a clear and strong message.

2. Show you care about your child’s happiness 

and well-being.

Young people are more likely to listen when they know 

you’re on their side. Try to reinforce why you don’t want 

your child to drink—not just because you say so, but 

because you want your child to be happy and safe. The 

conversation will go a lot better if you’re working with, and 

not against, your child.

3. Show you’re a good source of information 

about alcohol.

You want your child to be making informed decisions 

about drinking, with reliable information about its dangers. 

You don’t want your child to be learning about alcohol 

from friends, the internet, or the media—you want to 

establish yourself as a trustworthy source of information.

4. Show you’re paying attention and you’ll 

notice if your child drinks.

You want to show you’re keeping an eye on your child, 

because young people are more likely to drink if they think 

no one will notice. There are many subtle ways to do this 

without prying.

5. Build your child’s skills and strategies for 

avoiding underage drinking.

Even if your child doesn’t want to drink, peer pressure 

is a powerful thing. It could be tempting to drink just to 

avoid looking uncool. To prepare your child to resist peer 

pressure, you’ll need to build skills and practice them.

Keep it low-key. 

Don’t worry, you don’t have to 

get everything across in one talk. 

Many small talks are better.

UNDERAGEDRINKING.SAMHSA.GOV
ex10-13.htm


Exhibit 10.1.3

 

FOURTH AMENDMENT

TO

CARROLL COMMUNITY BANK

EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2011

 

This Fourth Amendment to the Carroll Community Bank Employee Stock Ownership Plan, effective as of January 1, 2011 (the “Plan”) is adopted by Carroll Community Bank (the “Employer”).

 

WHEREAS, the Employer desires to amend the Plan in order to comply with certain Internal Revenue Code requirements;

 

NOW, THEREFORE effective as of January 1, 2011, the Employer under the rights reserved in Section 13.3 of the Plan, hereby amends the Plan as follows:

 

First Change

 

In Section 1.6, delete the second sentence and replace it with the following:

 

“The Plan is intended to have its assets invested primarily in Stock of one or more Employers, which Stock is intended to satisfy the definition of qualified employer securities within the meaning of Sections 4975(e)(8) and 409(l) of the Code, and to satisfy any requirements under ERISA or the Code applicable to such a plan.” 

 

Second Change

 

In Section 8.1, add subsection (d) to read as follows;

 

“As of the end of each Plan Year, Shares of Stock released from the Unallocated Stock Fund will be allocated to Participants’ accounts in Shares of Stock or other non-monetary units, as opposed to dollar amounts, in accordance with T. Reg. Section 54.4975-11(d)(2).”

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Plan has been executed on April 16, 2015.
----

----

| Date:  May      8, 2009 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | By:    | /s/      James Rudis                 |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | James      Rudis                     |
|                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Chief      Executive Officer         |
|                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | (principal      executive officer)   |
|                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |                                 |
|                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |                                 |
|                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |                                 |
| Date:  May      8, 2009 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | By:    | /s/      Tracy E. Quinn              |
|                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Tracy      E. Quinn                  |
|                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | Interim      Chief Financial Officer |
|                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | (principal      financial officer)   |

----
### §5203. Department of Energy

The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a program in superconductivity research and development. Within 180 days after November 19, 1988, and for the two succeeding years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit annual reports on the implementation of technology transfer activities under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 [15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.] and related legislation with respect to superconductivity research and development to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate. Such report shall include recommendations for improvements in the technology transfer between government and industry, and in the management of property developed or made at the National Laboratories.

(Pub. L. 100–697, §4, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4615.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 96–480, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2311, which is classified generally to chapter 63 (§3701 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3701 of this title and Tables.
ON YOUR WAY TO PRACTICE...

See if she has ever been offered alcohol.

Show your child you care and help build accountability by setting clear and consistent expectations 

regarding alcohol use. For tips on how—and when—to begin the conversation, visit 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-022
§ 4.14 Hearing upon report. ( a ) *Public hearing.* After the expiration of the time within which a protest may be filed, a public hearing will be ordered in accordance with subpart E of part 385 of this chapter.
( b ) *Commission determination.* After the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission will make a finding of fair value, accompanied by an order which will be served upon the licensee and all parties to the proceeding. One copy of the order shall be furnished to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Commission.
( c ) *Adjustment to licensee's books.* The licensee's books of account for the project shall be adjusted to conform to the fair value of the project as revised by the order of the Commission. These adjustments and the project may be audited by Commission representatives, as scheduled.
[Order 53, 44 FR 61949, Oct. 29, 1979, as amended by Order 225, 47 FR 19056, May 3, 1982]
#### § 367.4081 Account 408.1, Taxes other than income taxes, operating income.

This account must include those taxes, other than income taxes, that relate to service company operating income. This account must be maintained so as to allow ready identification of the various classes of taxes.
### SUBCHAPTER LIX–W—KEWEENAW NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
# C_2015127EN.01003901.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/39

---

Order of the General Court of 18 February 2015 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council

(Case T-582/10) (1)

1

(2015/C 127/52)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 11/30/96
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          27,296
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                    29,023
<INVENTORY>                                     94,473
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               259,368
<PP&E>                                          27,725
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          188,003
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           193
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                        947,601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               947,601
<CGS>                                          810,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  810,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               136,117
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,866)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (453)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,413)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,413)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.33)
        

</TABLE>
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Service Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward A. Hjerpe, III, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B (Item 601(b)(32))
promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not
be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/    EDWARD A. HJERPE, III   
|Edward A. Hjerpe, III          
|Interim Chief Executive Officer
|November 14, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 710 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 710

To exempt firefighters and police officers from the Government Pension 
 Offset and Windfall Elimination Provisions under the Social Security 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2019

  Mr. Toomey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To exempt firefighters and police officers from the Government Pension 
 Offset and Windfall Elimination Provisions under the Social Security 
                                  Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Fairness for 
Firefighters and Police Officers Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION FROM GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVISION FOR 
              FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS.

    Clause (i) of section 202(k)(5)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 402(k)(5)(B)) is amended by striking ``monthly periodic 
benefits'' and all that follows through the period and inserting the 
following: ``monthly periodic benefits--
    ``(I) based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service 
(as defined in section 210(m)), or
    ``(II) with respect to which the period of service taken into 
account in determining the amount of the benefit includes at least 5 
years of service of the individual as a firefighter (as defined in 
paragraph (4) of section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284)) or a law enforcement officer (as 
defined in paragraph (6) of such section).''.

SEC. 3. EXCEPTION FROM WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS FOR FIREFIGHTERS 
              AND POLICE OFFICERS.

    Subsections (a)(7)(A) and (d)(3) of section 215 of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415) are amended by striking ``section 233, and 
(III)'' each place it appears and inserting ``section 233, (III) a 
payment based on service described in section 202(k)(5)(B)(i)(II), and 
(IV)''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to monthly 
insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social Security Act 
for months after December 2019. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the 
Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust 
primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take into account 
the amendments made by section 3.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007129EN.01000702.xml

| 9.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nantes (France) lodged on 27 March 2007 — James Wood v Fonds de Garantie

(Case C-164/07)

(2007/C 129/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nantes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: James Wood

Applicant:

Defendant: Fonds de Garantie

Defendant:

Question referred

In the light of the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, set out in Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome, are the provisions of Article 706-3 of the French Code de Procédure Pénale compatible or not with Community law in that a citizen of the European Community, residing in France, the father of a child having French nationality who died outside [French] territory, does not have a right to compensation paid by the Fonds de Garantie on the sole ground of his nationality?

---