alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1,--j ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 24-0267 

BRIAN PARKER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RICK BARMAN, Administrator, 

NEXUS Treatment Center, 

Respondent. 

_TT) 

MAY 2 1 2024 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana 

ORDER 

Self-represented Petitioner Brian Parker has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, indicating that his incarceration is illegal, and seeking to be resentenced. He 

provides that he "only [has] one DWI in Montana" but that he "was charged with a felony 

4th based on previous DWI convictions in Minnesota." Parker statesithat two of his earlier 

convictions—January 26, 2010 and August 7, 1995—would have "fallen off[,1" because 

under Minnesota law, "they fall off after 10 years." He believes that he was illegally 

sentenced in Richland County, and thus, he seeks resentencing to a misdemeanor. Parker 

is currently placed in the NEXUS Treatment Center. 

We secured copies of available electronic documents. On December 14, 2020, in 

open court, the Seventh Judicial District Court, Richland County, accepted Parker's guilty 

plea to aggravated driving under the influence or being in actual phYsical control of a 

vehicle under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and committed him to the Department of 

Corrections (DOC) for a suspended, five-year term. The court also ordered that Parker 

enroll and complete the Adult DUI Treatment Court. 

Parker's challenge comes too late. The time to object to his DUI conviction was in 

2020. Parker should have raised the argument about his prior Minnesota convictions in the 

District Court. Parker also did not appeal his conviction and sentence to this Court, where 

05/21/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0267
he could have raised such arguments preserved for appeal. Parker is precluded from 

challenging his conviction through a writ of habeas corpus. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. 

Moreover, the District Court has since revoked Parker's suspended sentence. Parker 

admitted to the violations in the Petition to Revoke in early November 2023. On December 

4, 2023, the District,Court revoked the 2020 sentence and committed Parker to DOC for 

an unsuspended, five-year term, recommending placement in NEXUS followed by prerelease. The court awarded 63 days of credit for time served and 567 days of street time 

credit. 

Parker cannot challenge his sentence upon revocation through this remedy. Section \ 

46-22-101(2), MCA. He has not demonstrated illegal incarceration, and he is not entitled 

to resentencing to a misdemeanor. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Parker's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and 

DISMISSED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is CLOSED as of this Order's date. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record; to Rick 

Barman, NEXUS, rbarman ccscorp.com; and to Brian Parker personally. 

DATED this I aay of May, 2024. 

„er , 4.40-

2
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.18 Filing a claim. ( a ) *How and when to file a claim.* A claim is filed when a federal military agency receives from a claimant or duly authorized agent a properly completed AF Form 180, DD Form 1842 or other written and signed demand for a determinable sum of money. ( 1 ) A claim is also filed when a federal military agency receives from a claimant or duly authorized agent an electronic submission, through a Department of Defense claims Web site, indicating that the claimant intends for the appropriate military branch to consider a digitally signed demand for a determinable sum of money.
( 2 ) A claim is also filed when the Air Force receives from a claimant or duly authorized agent an electronic submission, through the Air Force claims Web site, a digitally signed demand for a determinable sum of money.
( b ) *Amending a claim.* A claimant may amend a claim at any time prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations by submitting a signed amendment. The settlement authority adjudicates and settles or forwards the amended claim as appropriate.
( c ) *Separate claims.* The claimant files a separate claim for each incident which caused a loss. For transportation claims, this means a separate claim for each shipment.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016]
Exhibit 32a  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 Annual Report of International Bancshares Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis
E. Nixon, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), as applicable;
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/
  Dennis E. NixonDennis E. NixonPresidentDate:
  February 25,
  2009  The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether on and before or after the
date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.  A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 811.5 Customers exempt from fees. Title III of the 1968 Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (42 U.S.C. 4201, 4231, and 4233) exempts some customers from paying for products and loans. This applies if the supplier has sufficient funds and if the exemption does not impair its mission. The requesting agency must certify that the materials are not commercially available. When requests for VI material do not meet exemption criteria, the requesting agency pays the fees. Exempted customers include: ( a ) DoD and other government agencies asking for materials for official activities (see DoD Instruction 4000.19, Interservice, and Intergovernmental Support, August 9, 1995, and DoD Directive 5040.2, Visual Information (VI), December 7, 1987.
( b ) Members of Congress asking for VI materials for official activities.
( c ) VI records center materials or services furnished according to law or Executive Order.
( d ) Federal, state, territorial, county, municipal governments, or their agencies, for activities contributing to an Air Force or DoD objective.
( e ) Nonprofit organizations for public health, education, or welfare purposes.
( f ) Armed Forces members with a casualty status, their next of kin, or authorized representative, if VI material requested relates to the member and does not compromise classified information or an accident investigation board's work.
( g ) The general public, to help the Armed Forces recruiting program or enhance public understanding of the Armed Forces, when SAF/PA determines that VI materials or services promote the Air Force's best interest.
( h ) Incidental or occasional requests for VI records center materials or services, including requests from residents of foreign countries, when fees would be inappropriate. AFI 16-101, International Affairs and Security Assistance Management, tells how a foreign government may obtain Air Force VI materials.
( i ) Legitimate news organizations working on news productions, documentaries, or print products that inform the public on Air Force activities.
#### § 651.26 Record of decision.

The Record of Decision (ROD) is a concise public document summarizing the findings in the EIS and the basis for the decision. A public ROD is required under the provisions of 40 CFR 1505.2 after completion of an EIS (see § 651.45 (j) for application). The ROD must identify mitigations which were important in supporting decisions, such as those mitigations which reduce otherwise significant impacts, and ensure that appropriate monitoring procedures are implemented (see § 651.15 for application).
#### SPIER v. HYDE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 13, 1903.)

Action by Charles L. Spier against Charles L. Hyde.

No opinion. Motion denied.
To Whom It May Concern:

As of toda y, 8 May 2012, Alaska Airlines wa s illegally selling flights on their proposed Washingt on Reagan - San Diego service SABRE reservation systems , with travel beginning 13 August 2012 . This, despite the fact that Alaska Airlines has not yet been awarded such service. The flights have since been removed from SABRE and can no longer be booked, but nonetheless Alaska Airlines must be promptly and appropriately disciplined for such actions, as it did attempt to sell and, in fact, actually sold, tickets on a flight which it does not government permission to fly. Signed, Concern Citizen
§ 552.167 Activities. ( a ) Authorized activities are listed in appendix C to this subpart.
( b ) Prohibited activities are listed in appendix D to this subpart.
#### SMITH v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM

No. 399P97

Case below: 126 N.C. 831

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 October 1997.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Maura D. Corrigan

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly, 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

January 13, 2011 

0112 

Order 

 

January 13, 2011 

139856 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139856 

 COA: 284512 

Monroe CC: 07-036291-FH 

CHARLES V. FACKELMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, leave to appeal was granted, 486 Mich 907 (2010), and this 

case was argued as part of the November 2010 session calendar. It now appears to this 

Court that the case of Michigan v Bryant, cert granted 130 S Ct 1685 (2010), is pending 

before the United States Supreme Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an 

issue raised in the present case. We ORDER that the disposition of this appeal be held in 

ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES
### The Schultze granite, the Tea Cup granodiorite, and the Granite Basin porphyry: A geochemical comparison of mineralized and unmineralized stocks in southern Arizona

By: S. C. Creasey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1303

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### §2209c. Use of funds for one-year contracts to be performed in two fiscal years

On and after October 28, 1991, funds appropriated to the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration may be used for one-year contracts which are to be performed in two fiscal years so long as the total amount for such contracts is obligated in the year for which the funds are appropriated.

(Pub. L. 102–142, title VII, §725, Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 913.)
#### PECK v. ANTES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Brokers—Sale oe Real Estate—Commissions—Written Contract.

A broker cannot recover .commissions for the sale of real estate without proving written authority from defendant to offer the property for sale.

¶ 1. See Brokers, vol. 8, Cent. Dig. §§ 44, 79.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.

Action by Hulbert Peck against Clara H. Antes. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and. MacLEAN, JJ.

John Hardy, for appellant.

Harris, Corwin, Gunnison & Meyers, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, as a real estate broker, to recover the sum of $249 as his commission as a broker on the sale of the premises known as No. 498 Ninth avenue,, in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, to one Mrs. Helena Lindemann, on or about the 3d day of May, 1902. The plaintiff in this case, having shown no written authority from the defendant to‘ offer her property for sale, cannot recover commissions from the defendant. Whiteleley v. Terry (Sup.) 82 N. Y. Supp. 89. The defendant brought this question to the attention of the court by his motion to dismiss upon the ground that “no contract that was binding upon the purchaser had ever been produced,” and an action cannot lie to. recover compensation for doing an act which the statute declares to be a misdemeanor. Moreover, an examination of the whole case shows an entire failure on the part of the plaintiff to maintain the burden of proof cast upon him of proving his employment by the defendant.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
1 

### Fellner, Christian

From: Frey, Nathan J. [Nat han_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:54 PM

To: Wayland, Robertj

Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Hutson, Nick; Fellner, Christian

Subject: Re: DOE NETL Contact

Best contacts would be:

John Wimer < john.wimer@netl.doe.gov >

304

‐ 285

‐ 4124

Eric Grol eric.grol@netl.doe.gov

412

‐ 386

‐ 5463

From : Wayland, Robertj [ mailto:Wayland.Ro bertj@epa.gov ]

Sent : Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:23 PM

To : Frey, Nathan J.

Cc : Culligan, Kevin < Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov >; Hutson, Nick < Hutson.Nick@epa.gov >; Fellner, Christian

< Fellner.Christian@epa.gov >

Subject : DOE NETL Contact



### Nathan

–

Can you let us know who the guy from NETL was on yesterday’s call that asked us to have a follow

‐ up

conversation with them next week regarding our use of the NETL numbers, costs and reports? We’re happy to

follow

‐ up with them, but just didn’t catch the name of the person making the request.

thanx!

bob



### Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D.

Leader, Energy Strategies Group

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Mail Code D243

‐ 01

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Office: (919) 541

‐ 1045

Cell: (919) 306

‐ 2290

Fax: (919) 541

‐ 5450

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

*************************************

DRAFT/Deliberative Document

‐ FOIA Exempt

*************************************

### The EPA had a conference call with representative from the National Energy Technology

Laboratory (NETL) and the Department of Ener gy Office of Fossil Energy on September 5,

2013. The discussion topic was how the EPA used and characterized the numbers and costs in

the various NETL reports used in de veloping the EGU G HG NSPS proposal.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.C.1


                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                           OMNIBUS COMPENSATION PLAN

      Pursuant to Sections 5.3 and 14.1 of the El Paso Natural Gas Company
Omnibus Compensation Plan, dated as of January 1, 1992 (the "Plan"), the Plan
is hereby amended as follows, effective April 1, 1998:

      Sections 5.1 is amended to read as follows:

            "5.1 Subject to Section 5.3, the maximum number of shares for which
      options, limited stock appreciation rights, stock appreciation rights and
      Restricted Stock may at any time be granted under the Plan is eight
      million (8,000,000) shares of Common Stock, from shares held in the
      Company's treasury or out of the authorized but unissued shares of the
      Company, or partly out of each, as shall be determined by the Board of
      Directors, subject to, and reduced by (on a post-split basis), the number
      of shares of Common Stock awarded prior to the occurrence of a
      two-for-one stock split effected by the Company in the form of a 100%
      stock dividend on April 1, 1998. Upon (i) the expiration or termination
      in whole or in part of unexercised options or the surrender of an option,
      or portion thereof, upon exercise of a related limited stock appreciation
      right or stock appreciation right for cash, and (ii) to the extent
      permissible under Rule 16b-3 promulgated under Section 16(b) of the
      Exchange Act, the forfeiture of Restricted Stock, shares of Common Stock
      which were subject thereto shall again be available for grants of
      options, limited stock appreciation rights, stock appreciation rights and
      Restricted Stock under the Plan. Any options, limited stock appreciation
      rights, stock appreciation rights and shares of Restricted Stock
      outstanding under the Plan on April 1, 1998, shall be adjusted on a
      two-for-one basis to reflect the stock dividend."

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be duly
executed on this 14 day of April   , 1998.


                                              EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY


                                              By: /s/  JOEL RICHARDS III
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                    Joel Richards III
                                                    Executive Vice President


Attest:

/s/ David L. Siddall
----------------------------
    David L. Siddall
    Corporate Secretary
§ 208.1 208.1 Purpose. This part: ( a ) Implements the responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense for administering NSEP.
( b ) Updates DoD policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures and requirements for administering and executing the NSEP service agreement in accordance with 50 U.S.C. chapter 37.
( c ) Modifies requirements related to the NSEP service agreement.
( d ) Assigns oversight of NSEP to the Defense Language and National Security Education Office.
### §2226. Employment of persons for forest fire fighting, pest control, and handling of animals

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Department is authorized on and after August 31, 1951, to employ or otherwise contract with persons at regular rates of pay for necessary hours of work for emergency forest fire fighting and pest control and for handling of animals, including dairy cattle, without regard to Sundays, Federal holidays, and the regular workweek.

(Aug. 31, 1951, ch. 374, title IV, §407, 65 Stat. 246.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 574a of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
EXHIBIT 32

                            Certified Services, Inc.;
                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orion Diversified Technologies,  Inc.
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period ended October 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on December 15, 2004 (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates  indicated  below,  each hereby
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  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
Certified Services, Inc.

Date: December 15, 2004

/s/  Irwin Pearl
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer

Date: December 15, 2004

/s/  Irwin Pearl
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
### §1728b. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 98–473, title III, §304, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2195, which required the President to submit a comprehensive annual report to appropriate committees of Congress detailing activities carried out under this subchapter, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, page 21 of House Document No. 103–7.