alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
01/28/10

Day Daily PM10 Time PM10 A‐SPD V‐SPD Dir

01/01/10 5.7 3/9/10 1:00 249.2 11.23 10.99 263

01/02/10 6.1 3/9/10 2:00 3148.1 16.6 15.74 267

01/03/10 6.3 3/9/10 3:00 200.6 16.4 16.18 270

01/04/10 7.8 3/9/10 4:00 42.1 16.94 16.76 273

01/05/10 8.6 3/9/10 5:00 12 13.38 13.08 286

01/06/10 8.3 3/9/10 6:00 10.6 11.42 11.26 290

01/07/10 11.2 3/9/10 7:00 5.3 9.4 9.25 286

01/08/10 10.3 3/9/10 8:00 8.6 6.405 6.16 300

01/09/10 6.7 3/9/10 9:00 195.9 9.77 9.58 346

01/10/10 6.6 3/9/10 10:00 296.8 12.6 12.42 348

01/11/10 15.7 3/9/10 11:00 552.2 11.63 11.44 354

01/12/10 20.6 3/9/10 12:00 256.1 10.08 9.92 1

01/13/10 5.3 3/9/10 13:00 146.9 9.81 9.65 360

01/14/10 4.5 3/9/10 14:00 73.6 7.21 6.637 346

01/15/10 6.4 3/9/10 15:00 21.8 6.737 6.506 273

01/16/10 6.4 3/9/10 16:00 36.8 9.23 9.13 272

01/17/10 7.8 3/9/10 17:00 12.3 7.89 7.81 272

01/21/10 2.6 3/9/10 18:00 4.2 7.91 7.84 275

01/22/10 5.7 3/9/10 19:00 12.1 4.503 3.404 284

01/23/10 4.5 3/9/10 20:00 13.4 2.466 0.725 277

01/24/10 5.0 3/9/10 21:00 12.2 2.271 1.926 55

01/25/10 6.4 3/9/10 22:00 8.8 2.44 1.89 106

01/26/10 5.4 3/9/10 23:00 8.5 2.015 1.575 280

01/27/10 5.5 3/10/10 0:00 5.3 1.553 0.335 114

01/28/10 5 5.

01/29/10 7.1 Average 222

01/30/10 6.4 w/o OL Dust 164

01/31/10 5.6 w/o trucks 78

02/01/10 8.2

02/02/10 7.4 Time PM10 A‐SPD V‐SPD Dir

02/03/10 9.4 3/18/10 1:00 7.8 0.738 0.585 321

02/04/10 15.1 3/18/10 2:00 6.7 0.706 0.516 333

02/05/10 8.5 3/18/10 3:00 6.1 2.735 2.481 354

02/06/10 2.8 3/18/10 4:00 10.3 4.926 4.849 338

02/07/10 4.1 3/18/10 5:00 8.7 4.62 4.295 337

02/08/10 5.2 3/18/10 6:00 12 2.748 2.621 1

02/09/10 6.6 3/18/10 7:00 16 2.077 0.975 21

02/10/10 4.7 3/18/10 8:00 13.5 5.053 4.768 337

02/11/10 5.9 3/18/10 9:00 14.5 7.91 7.86 332

02/12/10 6.4 3/18/10 10:00 19.4 7.03 6.937 335

02/13/10 6.6 3/18/10 11:00 15.2 7.87 7.74 347

02/14/10 9.4 3/18/10 12:00 19.6 7.52 7.4 336

02/15/10 11.2 3/18/10 13:00 20.4 8.45 8.32 338

02/16/10 12.8 3/18/10 14:00 12.6 6.311 6.102 336

02/17/10 12.7 3/18/10 15:00 9.8 5.719 5.409 338

02/18/10 13.4 3/18/10 16:00 38.2 7.59 7.34 347
03/16/10 13

9

02/19/10 28.3 3/18/10 17:00 1255.3 14.44 14.28 356

02/20/10 19.0 3/18/10 18:00 1322.6 14.88 14.7 348

02/21/10 17.6 3/18/10 19:00 227.4 14.39 14.17 354

02/22/10 17.7 3/18/10 20:00 66.1 8.85 8.46 332

02/23/10 14.5 3/18/10 21:00 209.8 9.96 9.784

02/24/10 14.4 3/18/10 22:00 147 10.11 9.89 360

02/25/10 7.5 3/18/10 23:00 109.3 5.585 5.31 336

02/26/10 9.9 3/19/10 0:00 188.2 11.37 10.98 351

02/27/10 5.7

02/28/10 5.7 Average 157

03/01/10 5.6

03/02/10 7.0

03/03/10 8.9

03/04/10 6.9

03/05/10 11.0

03/06/10 6.1

03/07/10 7.2

03/08/10 10.3

03/09/10 222.2

03/10/10 14.6

03/11/10 17.0

03/12/10 11.8

03/13/10 81.3

03/14/10 32.6

03/15/10 10.2

03/16/10 13.9

03/17/10 11.6

03/18/10 156.5

03/19/10 82.5

03/20/10 21.1

03/21/10 20.6

03/22/10 41.1

03/23/10 100.8

03/24/10 28.1

03/25/10 43.2

03/26/10 27.4

03/27/10 41.3

03/28/10 10.2

03/29/10 19.9

03/30/10 120.8

03/31/10 20.0
#### § 402.1 What is the purpose of part 402?

This part sets out the terms and conditions under which HUD will renew project-based assistance contracts under the authority provided in section 524 of MAHRA.

[71 FR 2121, Jan. 12, 2006]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

89–012 2000

106th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – Document 106–306

VETO MESSAGE ON H.R. 4516

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

HIS VETO OF H.R. 4516, A BILL MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR

THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 20, 2001, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

NOVEMBER 1, 2000.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the

Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed

(1)

To the House of Representatives:

I am returning herewith without my approval, H.R. 4516, the

Legislative Branch and the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001. This bill provides funds for the legislative

branch and the White House at a time when the business of the

American people remains unfinished.

The Congress’ continued refusal to focus on the priorities of the

American people leaves me no alternative but to veto this bill. I

cannot in good conscience sign a bill that funds the operations of

the Congress and the White House before funding our classrooms,

fixing our schools, and protecting our workers.

With the largest student enrollment in history, we need a budget

that will allow us to repair and modernize crumbling schools, reduce class size, hire more and better trained teachers, expand

after-school programs, and strengthen accountability to turn

around failing schools.

I would sign this legislation in the context of a budget that puts

the interests of the American people before self interest or special

interests. I urge the Congress to get its priorities in order and send

me, without further delay, balanced legislation I can sign.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 30, 2000.

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

29

30

31

32

33

34

35
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3018

To amend the Hmong Veterans’ Naturalization Act of 2000 to eliminate 

the application deadlines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 21, 2005

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin (for herself, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. KIND, Mr. HOLDEN, 

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. SABO, Mr. HONDA, and Mr. MCDERMOTT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend the Hmong Veterans’ Naturalization Act of 2000 

to eliminate the application deadlines.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bruce Vento Hmong 

5 Veterans’ Naturalization Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF APPLICATION DEADLINES. 

7 Section 6 of the Hmong Veterans’ Naturalization Act 

8 of 2000 (8 U.S.C. 1423 note) (as amended by section 112 
2

•HR 3018 IH 

1 of Public Law 107–77 (115 Stat. 765)) is amended to 

2 read as follows: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 6. NO DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION; PAYMENT OF 

4 FEES. 

5 ‘‘This Act shall apply to a person only if the person 

6 files an application for naturalization, as provided in sec7 tion 334 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

8 1445), and pays the appropriate fees.’’.

Æ
- 1 - 

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING THE FILING OF 

DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMNo. C-09-02270 CRB 

Cindi L. Pusateri (CA State Bar No. 216899) 

cpusateri@meyerwhite.com 

Hien Nguyen (CA State Bar No. 229794) 

hnguyen@meyerwhite.com 

MEYER WHITE LLP 

515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3600 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 236-3631 

Facsimile: (213) 236-3661 

Julia Lynn Nye (CA State Bar No. 160092) 

jnye@meyerwhite.com 

Ted D. Meyer (Pro Hac Vice) 

(TX State Bar No. 13997500) 

tmeyer@meyerwhite.com 

MEYER WHITE LLP 

600 Travis Street, Suite 900 

Houston, TX 77002 

Telephone: (713) 951-1400 

Facsimile: (713) 951-1499 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Lennar Associates Management, LLC 

and Lennar Corporation dba Lennar Homes 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Upon consideration of the parties’ Stipulation Concerning the Filing of Defendant’s 

Counterclaim (“Stipulation”), and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

that: 

1. Defendant Lennar Associates Management, LLC (“Defendant”) shall be allowed to 

file a Counterclaim, in the form attached as Exhibit 1 to the parties’ Stipulation. The Counterclaim 

ERIC GUNDERSEN, on behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LENNAR ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT, 

LLC; LENNAR CORPORATION, dba 

LENNAR HOMES; and DOES 1- 10, inclusive,

 Defendants. 

 No. C-09-02270 CRB 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING 

FILING OF DEFENDANT LENNAR 

ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT 

LLC’S COUNTERCLAIM 

Case 3:09-cv-02270-CRB Document 122 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING THE FILING OF 

DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMNo. C-09-02270 CRB 

is deemed served and filed on the date of entry of this Order. 

2. Plaintiff shall answer or otherwise respond to Defendant’s Counterclaim within 

thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. 

3. The filing of Defendant’s Counterclaim merely supplements the operative Answer 

in this action, and Defendant’s responses and affirmative and other defenses alleged in the 

operative Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint remain in effect. See Docket Entry Nos. 1-2 and 1. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, 

Dated: ____________ By: _______________________________ 

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer 

United States District Judge 

Northern District of California 

June 21, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-02270-CRB Document 122 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0186

JACOB SMITH,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL ROOPE,

 Defendant and Appellee.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Michael Donahoe, whose name appears next on the list 

of pro bono attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments 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 April 21, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Jacob Smith, Michael Roope, Michael Donahoe

04/21/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0186
§ 26.27 Interlocutory rulings. ( a ) *Interlocutory rulings by the hearing officer.* A party seeking review of an interlocutory ruling shall file a motion with the hearing officer within 10 days of the ruling requesting certification of the ruling for review by the Secretary, or in cases arising under 2 CFR part 2424, with the Debarring Official. Certification may be granted if the hearing officer believes that: ( 1 ) It involves an important issue of law or policy as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and
( 2 ) An immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
( b ) *Petition for review.* Any party may file a petition for review of an interlocutory ruling within 10 days of the hearing officer's determination regarding certification.
( c ) *Secretarial review.* The Secretary, or designee, or Debarring Official shall review a certified ruling. The Secretary, designee, or Debarring Official has the discretion to grant or deny a petition for review from an uncertified ruling.
( d ) *Continuation of hearing.* Unless otherwise ordered by the hearing officer or the Secretary, designee, or Debarring Official, the hearing shall proceed pending the determination of any interlocutory appeal, and the order or ruling of the hearing officer shall be effective pending review.
#### § 50.41 EIS policy.

EIS's will be prepared and considered in program determinations pursuant to the general environmental policy stated in § 50.3 and 40 CFR 1505.2 (b) and (c).
#### Arthur B. Archambault et al., appellees, v. Tom Demos, James Pulos and Peter Langas, copartners, appellants.

Gen. No. 28,226.

Suit for breach of contract to buy whiskey barrels. Judgment for plaintiffs. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Robert E. Gentzel, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 28, 1923.

Melnerney & Power, for appellants. Holdom, Pratt & Ziess, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §315e. Rights of way; development of mineral resources

Nothing contained in this subchapter shall restrict the acquisition, granting or use of permits or rights of way within grazing districts under existing law; or ingress or egress over the public lands in such districts for all proper and lawful purposes; and nothing contained in this subchapter shall restrict prospecting, locating, developing, mining, entering, leasing, or patenting the mineral resources of such districts under law applicable thereto.

(June 28, 1934, ch. 865, §6, 48 Stat. 1272.)
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3130 

Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for veterans medical 

services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 30, 2005 

Mr. WALSH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Appropriations 

JUNE 30, 2005 

Considered under suspension of the rules and passed 

A BILL 

Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for 

veterans medical services. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following sums are appropriated, out of any 

4 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for fis5 cal year 2005: 
2 

•HR 3130 CPH 

1 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

2 VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

3 MEDICAL SERVICES

4 For an additional amount for ‘‘Medical Services’’, 

5 $975,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 

6 2006. 

Æ
### §975b. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §704(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792

Section, act Mar. 12, 1914, ch. 37, §1, 38 Stat. 307, authorized the President to withdraw, locate, and dispose of lands for town-site purposes along Alaskan railroad lines. Section was comprised of original fourth paragraph of act Mar. 12, 1914. Section was formerly classified to section 303 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §704(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792, provided that the repeal made by section 704(a) is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William Callahan, Appellant, against Walter B. Martin, as Warden of Attica Prison, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Motion granted to prosecute appeal on original papers, five typewritten briefs, from order entered August 1, 1957, and James N. Carlo, Esq., of Buffalo, assigned to conduct appeal.
§ 599.403 Number of Renewal Communities to be designated. ( a ) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the total number of Renewal Communities to be designated and the distribution of designations between urban and rural areas are as follows: ( 1 ) *Total number.* The total number of nominated areas to be selected for designation as Renewal Communities is 40.
( 2 ) *Rural areas.* HUD will select at least 12 rural areas for designation as Renewal Communities. If HUD does not receive at least 12 eligible rural area applications for Renewal Community designation, the number of rural area designations will be the number of eligible rural area applications received by HUD.
( 3 ) *Urban areas.* The number of urban areas selected for designation as Renewal Communities will be the number remaining after subtracting the number of rural areas selected from 40.
( b ) *Less than 40 eligible applications.* If HUD receives fewer than 40 eligible applications nominating areas, the total number of nominated areas to be selected for designation as Renewal Communities will be the total number of eligible applications.
### §6373. Off-highway motor vehicles

Not later than 1 year after November 9, 1978, the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a study of the energy conservation potential of recreational motor vehicles, including, but not limited to, aircraft and motor boats which are designed for recreational use, and shall submit a report to the President and to the Congress containing the results of such study.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §385, as added Pub. L. 95–619, title VI, §681(a), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3286.)
* 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. 07-40089

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GILBERTO CHAVEZ-SIFUENTES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-683-1

Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gilberto Chavez-Sifuentes appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence

for being found in the United States following a prior deportation, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Chavez-Sifuentes argues that the district court erred in

imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because his

prior Texas conviction for aggravated assaultis not a crime of violence under the

Sentencing Guidelines. He contends that the Texas crime of aggravated assault

has a broader definition than most other definitions of aggravated assault

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40089

2

because it may be committed by threatening the victim with a weapon. The

Texas statute, TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02, is substantially similar to the

definition of“aggravated assault” under the ModelPenal Code and thus qualifies

as the enumerated offense of “aggravated assault” under the Guidelines. See

United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 199-201 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

128 S. Ct. 418 (2007).

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Chavez-Sifuentes

challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the

offense that must be found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 872

(Jan. 7, 2008) (No. 07-6202). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/15/2011 03:47 PM Subject: Interagency Comments on RIN 2060-AP52 - RIA Ch 9

Hi Bob,

Attached are the interagency comments on Chapter 9 of the RIA. Please let me know if there are questions or if we need to set up a call to talk about this chapter.

Thanks, Cortney

________________________________________________ Cortney Higgins Policy Analyst OMB/OIRA/NRE OMB/OIRA/NRE

202.395.7856 chiggins@omb.eop.gov
### §2222. Drought contingency plans

The Secretary, acting pursuant to the Federal Reclamation laws, utilizing the resources of the Department of the Interior, and in consultation with other appropriate Federal and State officials, Indian tribes, public, private, and local entities, is authorized to prepare or participate in the preparation of cooperative drought contingency plans (hereinafter in this subchapter referred to as "contingency plans") for the prevention or mitigation of adverse effects of drought conditions.

(Pub. L. 102–250, title II, §202, Mar. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 56.)
§ 25.7 Notice of violation. ( a ) *General.* The Chairperson of the Board, or the Chairperson's designee, shall issue a written notice to the mortgagee at the mortgagee's address of record at least 30 days prior to taking any action under 12 U.S.C. 1708(c) against the mortgagee. Proof of delivery to the mortgagee's address of record shall establish the mortgagee's receipt of the notice. The notice shall state the specific violations that have been alleged, and shall direct the mortgagee to reply in writing to the Board within 30 days after receipt of the notice by the mortgagee. The notice shall also provide the address to which the response shall be sent. If the mortgagee fails to reply during such time period, the Board may make a determination without considering any comments of the mortgagee.
( b ) *Mortgagee's response.* The mortgagee's response to the Board shall be in a format prescribed by the Secretary and shall not exceed 15 double-spaced typewritten pages. The response shall include an executive summary, a statement of the facts surrounding the matter, an argument, and a conclusion. Such response shall also address the factors listed in § 25.8. A more lengthy submission, including documents and other exhibits, may be simultaneously submitted to Board staff for review.
( c ) *Exception for letter of reprimand.* Whenever information comes before the Board that discloses a basis for the issuance of a letter of reprimand, the Board may issue the letter without having previously issued a notice of violation.
( d ) *Exception for immediate suspension.* If the Board determines that there exists adequate evidence that immediate action is required to protect the financial interests of the Department or the public, the Board may take a suspension action without having previously issued a notice of violation.
[73 FR 60541, Oct. 10, 2008]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 3 78 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. JOHN THURLOW MOSBY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 3 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

April 28 2020

04/28/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0378
### §390h–15. Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1992, $4,000,000 to carry out the study authorized by section 390h–14 of this title.

(Pub. L. 102–575, title XVI, §1633, formerly §1617, Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4669; renumbered §1633 and amended Pub. L. 104–266, §2(a)(1), (b)(3), Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3290, 3294.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–266, §2(b)(3), made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 390h–14 of this title.