alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0459

_________________

B.Y.O.B., Inc., a Montana Corporation, JIM GLANTZ, 

Individually and as PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE 

OF THE ESTATE OF DONNA GLANTZ, Deceased, 

ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF DONNA 

GLANTZ, BARBARA RILEY, MEADOW LAKE 

REAL ESTATE a/b/n of CYA, Inc., GILDO, LLC, a 

Montana Limited Liability Company, TERIN 

GILDEN, and NATHAN GILDEN,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA, a governmental entity; THE 

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, a 

political subdivision of the State of Montana; and 

DOES A-Z,

 Defendants and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Jon A. Oldenburg, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 28 2021

04/28/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0459
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Leo D. Halbreich, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs, unless appellant perfects appeal, files note of issue, and files and serves record and brief on or before August 1, 1960 and is ready for argument at the September Term of this court, in which event the motion is denied. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### Theodore Krechmer, Respondent, v Janna Boulakh et al., Appellants.

[715 NYS2d 253]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for conversion, the defendants Alexei Kouznetsov and Zoya Kuznetsova appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deutsch, J.H.O.), dated September 29, 1999, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court (Rigler, J.), dated January 20, 1999, granting the plaintiffs motion to enter judgment against them upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the record amply supports the court’s determination that personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendant Zoya Kuznetsova by proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) *(see, F.I. duPont, Glore, Forgan & Co. v Chen,*41 NY2d 794; *Chesman v Lippoth,*271 AD2d 567; *Roldan v Thorpe,*117 AD2d 790; *Braun v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr.,*91 AD2d 985). Issues of credibility are generally for the court and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see, Koslosky v Koslosky,*267 AD2d 357; *McGuirk v Mugs Pub,*250 AD2d *289824; *Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v Sundaram,*238 AD2d 372). The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination and will not be disturbed.

The Supreme Court also correctly found that the defendant Alexei Kouznetsov was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) *(see, National Dev. Co. v Triad Holding Corp.,*930 F2d 253, *cert denied sub nom. Khashoggi v National Dev. Co.,*502 US 968; *see also, Howard Johnson Intl. v Wang,*181 F3d 82; *ITC Entertainment v Nelson Film Partners,*714 F2d 217; *Karlin v Avis,*326 F Supp 1325). This defendant, a resident of Moscow, only sporadically stayed in his New York vacation house that he owned and shared with, among others, his infant daughter and her mother, the defendant Janna Boulakh. Nevertheless, this house was properly found to be his “dwelling place or usual place of abode within the state” (CPLR 308 [4]). The appellants’ reliance upon *Mangold v Neuman*(57 NY2d 627) is misplaced, as the only issue decided in that case was the defendant’s residence. In the instant case, it is uncontroverted that Alexei Kouznetsov’s residence is in Moscow. Moreover, *Mangold v Neuman (supra)*concerned an issue involving service upon an American citizen with multiple domestic residences, not upon a foreign citizen with a principal residence abroad *(see, National Dev. Co. v Triad Holding Corp., supra).*Under the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that service was effectuated at Alexei Kouznetsov’s “dwelling place or usual place of abode within the state” (CPLR 308 [4]) and thus jurisdiction over him was acquired.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
#### §§ 711.112-711.129 [Reserved]
### §5675. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5675 was editorially reclassified as section 11185 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §3611. Subpoenas; giving of evidence

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may, in accordance with this subsection, issue subpoenas and order discovery in aid of investigations and hearings under this subchapter. Such subpoenas and discovery may be ordered to the same extent and subject to the same limitations as would apply if the subpoenas or discovery were ordered or served in aid of a civil action in the United States district court for the district in which the investigation is taking place.

#### (b) Witness fees

Witnesses summoned by a subpoena under this subchapter shall be entitled to the same witness and mileage fees as witnesses in proceedings in United States district courts. Fees payable to a witness summoned by a subpoena issued at the request of a party shall be paid by that party or, where a party is unable to pay the fees, by the Secretary.

#### (c) Criminal penalties

(1) Any person who willfully fails or neglects to attend and testify or to answer any lawful inquiry or to produce records, documents, or other evidence, if it is in such person's power to do so, in obedience to the subpoena or other lawful order under subsection (a), shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(2) Any person who, with intent thereby to mislead another person in any proceeding under this subchapter—

(A) makes or causes to be made any false entry or statement of fact in any report, account, record, or other document produced pursuant to subpoena or other lawful order under subsection (a);

(B) willfully neglects or fails to make or to cause to be made full, true, and correct entries in such reports, accounts, records, or other documents; or

(C) willfully mutilates, alters, or by any other means falsifies any documentary evidence;

shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title VIII, §811, as added Pub. L. 100–430, §8(2), Sept. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 1628.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3611, Pub. L. 90–284, title VIII, §811, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 87, related to evidence, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–430, §8(2).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on 180th day beginning after Sept. 13, 1988, see section 13(a) of Pub. L. 100–430, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 3601 of this title.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0030 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. CORENA MARIE MOUNTAIN CHEIF ,

Defendant and Appellant,

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 2 9 , 202 2 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

July 25 2022

07/25/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0030
###### Editorial Note on Part 707

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 707 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 707.13 Preservation of records.

DFC preserves all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this part, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 14 of the National Archives and Records Administration. Records that are identified as responsive to a request will not be disposed of or destroyed while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the Privacy Act.
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

LIBERATO CABALO and WILTHELMA

CABALO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EMC MORTGAGE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-5667 MEJ

ORDER RE: STATUS REPORT

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Joint Case Management Statement, filed August 5,

2010. (Dkt. #64.) Upon review of the statement, the Court finds it unnecessary to schedule any

deadlines at this time. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to file an updated status report

by September 2, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-05667-MEJ Document 65 Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27764]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Revocation of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration by the Final Order of the United States 
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco 
Division, dated October 6, 2004, in Case No. C01-4886 EMC, the United 
States Small Business Administration hereby revokes the license of 
Point West Ventures, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, to function 
as a small business investment company under the Small Business 
Investment Company License No. 09/09-0411 issued to Point West 
Ventures, L.P. on September 26, 1997, and said license is hereby 
declared null and void as of November 24, 2004.

Small Business Administration.

    Dated: December 14, 2004.
Jaime Guzman Fournier,
Acting Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 04-27764 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
1 

Draft Charge to External Reviewers for the 

IRIS Toxicological Review of Urea 

June 2010 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking an external peer review of the 

scientific basis supporting the human health assessment of urea that will appear on the Agency’s 

online database, the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS is prepared and 

maintained by the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within the 

Office of Research and Development (ORD). Currently an IRIS assessment of urea does not 

exist on the database. 

The current draft health assessment includes an evaluation of the available data and a 

determination that the data are insufficient for the derivation of toxicity values. A cancer 

descriptor for urea is included. Below is a set of charge questions that address scientific issues in

the assessment of urea. Please provide detailed explanations for responses to the charge 

questions. Please consider the accuracy, objectivity, and transparency of EPA’s analysis and 

conclusions in your review.

General Charge Questions:

1. Is the Toxicological Review logical, clear and concise? Has EPA clearly synthesized the 

scientific evidence for noncancer and cancer hazard? 

2. Please identify any additional studies that should be considered in the assessment of the 

noncancer and cancer health effects of urea. 

Chemical-Specific Charge Questions: 

(A) Oral reference dose (RfD) for urea 

1. An RfD for urea was not derived. Is the rationale for not deriving an RfD scientifically 

justified and clearly described? Please identify and provide the rationale for any studies that 

should be selected as the principal study and any endpoint that should be considered as a critical 

effect. 

(B) Inhalation reference concentration (RfC) for urea 

1. An RfC for urea was not derived. Is the rationale for not deriving an RfC scientifically 

justified and clearly described? Please identify and provide the rationale for any studies that 

should be selected as the principal study and any endpoint that should be considered as a critical 

effect? 

(C) Carcinogenicity of urea 

1. Under EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (www.epa.gov/iris/backgrd.htm), the Agency concluded that there is inadequate information to access the carcinogenic 

potential of urea. Is the choice of cancer descriptor scientifically justified and clearly described? 

2. EPA did not derive a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic potential of urea. Do the data 

support an estimation of a cancer slope factor for urea? If a quantitative estimate is proposed, 

please identify the data set and a description of the method that should be used.
§ 401.4 Duties of secretaries. ( a ) The secretaries shall act as joint secretaries at all meetings and hearings of the Commission. The secretary of the section of the Commission of the country in which a meeting or hearing is held shall prepare a record thereof and each secretary shall preserve an authentic copy of the same in the permanent offices of the Commission.
( b ) Each secretary shall receive and file all applications, references and other papers properly presented to the Commission in any proceeding instituted before it and shall number in numerical order all such applications and references; the number given to an application or reference shall be the primary file number for all papers relating to such application or reference.
( c ) Each secretary shall forward to the other for filing in the office of the other copies of all official letters, documents, records or other papers received by him or filed in his office, pertaining to any proceeding before the Commission, to the end that there shall be on file in each office either the original or a copy of all official letters and other papers, relating to the said proceeding.
( d ) Each secretary shall also forward to the other for filing in the office of the other copies of any letters, documents or other papers received by him or filed in his office which are deemed by him to be of interest to the Commission.
§ 67.1 Introduction. ( a ) The National Endowment for Democracy (hereinafter “NED”) was created in 1983 to stregthen democratic values and institutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts. Incorporated in the District of Columbia and governed by a bipartisan Board of Directors, NED is tax-exempt, nonprofit, private corporation as defined in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Through its worldwide grant program, NED seeks to enlist the energies and talents of private citizens and groups to work with partners abroad who wish to build for themselves a democratic future.
( b ) Since its establishment in 1983, NED has received an annual appropriation approved by the United States Congress as part of the United States Information Agency budget. Appropriations for NED are authorized in the National Endowment for Democracy Act (the “Act”), 22 U.S.C. 4411 *et seq.*
( c ) The activities supported by NED are guided by the six purposes set forth in NED's Articles of Incorporation and the National Endowment for Democracy Act. These six purposes are: ( 1 ) To encourage free and democratic institutions throughout the world through private-sector initiatives, including activities which promote the individual rights and freedoms (including internationally recognized human rights) which are essential to the functioning of democratic institutions;
( 2 ) To facilitate exchanges between U.S. private sector groups (especially the two major American political parties, labor and business) and democratic groups abroad;
( 3 ) To promote U.S. nongovernmental participation (especially through the two major American political parties, labor, and business) in democratic training programs and democratic institution-building abroad;
( 4 ) To strengthen democratic electoral processes abroad through timely measures in cooperation with indigenous democratic forces;
( 5 ) To support the participation of the two major American political parties, labor, business, and other U.S. private-sector groups in fostering cooperation with those abroad dedicated to the cultural values, institutions, and organizations of democratic pluralism; and
( 6 ) To encourage the establishment and growth of democratic development in a manner consistent both with the broad concerns of United States national interests and with the specific requirements of the democratic groups in other countries which are aided by NED-supported programs.
### §4603. Additional appropriations for moving costs, relocation benefits and other expenses incurred in acquisition of lands for National Park System; waiver of benefits

(a) In all instances where authorizations of appropriations for the acquisition of lands for the National Park System enacted prior to January 9, 1971, do not include provisions therefor, there are authorized to be appropriated such additional sums as may be necessary to provide for moving costs, relocation benefits, and other expenses incurred pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–646; 84 Stat. 1894). There are also authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $8,400,000 in addition to those authorized in Public Law 92–272 (86 Stat. 120) to provide for such moving costs, relocation benefits, and other related expenses in connection with the acquisition of lands authorized by Public Law 92–272.

(b) Whenever an owner of property elects to retain a right of use and occupancy pursuant to any statute authorizing the acquisition of property for purposes of a unit of the National Park System, such owner shall be deemed to have waived any benefits under sections 4623, 4624, 4625, and 4626 of this title, and for the purposes of those sections such owner shall not be considered a displaced person as defined in section 4601(6) of this title.

(Pub. L. 93–477, title IV, §405, Oct. 26, 1974, 88 Stat. 1448.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 91–646, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1894, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4601 of this title and Tables.

Public Law 92–272, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 92–272, Apr. 11, 1972, 86 Stat. 120, which to the extent classified to the Code, amended sections 284b, 428m, 459f–10, 460m–1, 460m–7 and 460t–4 of Title 16, Conservation, and amended a provision set out as a note under section 450ll of Title 16. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 which comprises this chapter.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-14(A) AND 15D-14(A),
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 d.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
  a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
 Date: November 4, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Timothy T. YatesTimothy T. YatesExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLOTTE YEE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HILDA SOLIS, SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Defendant. /

No. CV-08-4259 MMC

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 

1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Adjudication of

Claims is hereby DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice is hereby DENIED.

Dated: April 23, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-04259-MMC Document 208 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 1