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

CASE NO. DA 22-0731

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

RAMES, INC. formerly d/b/a

CENTRAL INSURANCE AGENCY,

Defendant/Appellant,

-vs.-

TCF ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a

MALMQUIST CONSTRUCTION

and CINCINATTI INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiffs/Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME

FOR APPELLANT RAMES,

INC.’S OPENING BRIEF

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

Pursuant to Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File

Appellant’s Opening Brief to May 5, 2023, no objection being made by counsel

for Appellees herein, and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant shall have to and including May

5, 2023, within which to file its opening brief. 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR 

APPELLANT RAMES, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF Page 1

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 27 2023

03/27/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0731
#### Estela B. Sanguinetti v. Alberto A. Sanguinetti.

Motion for an order restoring to the Enumerated Calendar for the November I9601 Term of this court three appeals taken by defendant-appellant granted and the appeals taken by defendant-appellant from the three orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 25, 1959, May 18,. 1959 and June 25, 1959, are restored to the Enumerated Calendar of this court for the November 1960 Term, on condition that the appellant serves and files a new notice of argument for the November 1960 Term of this court on or before October 24, 1960. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
No. 7966.

#### Thatcher *v.*Kirkpatrick et al., Exrs.

(Decided December 18, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Clark county.

*Mr. D. F. Reinoelil*and *Mr. L. F. Young,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. G. G. Kirkpatrick*and *Messrs. Hagan & Kunkle,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our report dated August 27, 2004, (except for Note 15. for which the date is September 15, 2004) accompanying the financial statements included in theAnnual Report of Venture Catalyst Incorporated on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report of Venture Catalyst Incorporated in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (FileNos. 333-19743, effective January 14, 1997, 333-19745, effective January 14, 1997, 333-19747, effective January 14, 1997, 333-44179, effective January 13, 1998, 333-82169, effective July 2, 1999, 333-47152, effective October 2, 2000 and 333-55434,effective February 12, 2001). 

 

/s/    GRANT THORNTON LLP 

 

Irvine, California 

August 27, 2004
§ 935.69 Qualifications and admission to practice. ( a ) No person may be appointed a Judge, Island Attorney, or Public Defender under this part who is not a member of the bar of a State, Commonwealth, or Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia.
( b ) Any person, other than an officer or employee of the Department of the Air Force, appointed as a Judge, Island Attorney, Public Defender, or to any other office under this part shall, prior to entering upon the duties of that office, take an oath, prescribed by the General Counsel, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Such oath may be administered by any officer or employee of the Department of the Air Force.
( c ) Civilian officers and employees of the Department of the Air Force may be appointed as a Judge, Island Attorney, Public Defender, or Clerk, as an additional duty and to serve without additional compensation. Officers and employees of the Department of the Air Force, both civilian and military, who serve in positions designated as providing legal services to the Department and who are admitted to practice law in an active status before the highest court of a State, Commonwealth, or territory of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, and are in good standing therewith, are admitted to the Bar of the Wake Island Court and the Wake Island Court of Appeals.
( d ) No person may practice law before the Wake Island Court or the Wake Island Court of Appeals who is not admitted to Bar of those courts. Any person admitted to practice law in an active status before the highest court of a State, Commonwealth, or territory of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, and in good standing therewith, may be admitted to the Bar of the Wake Island Court and the Wake Island Court of Appeals. Upon request of the applicant, the Court, on its own motion, may grant admission. A grant of admission by either court constitutes admission to practice before both courts.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

NCLBCHOICES FOR PARENTS
#### 1452.233-2 Service of Protest.

As prescribed in 1433.106, the provision at FAR 52.233-2, Service of Protest, shall be modified before insertion into solicitations and contracts by changing the title of the provision to read: “Service of Protest Department of the Interior (JUL 1996) (Deviation)”; and adding the following sentence to the end of the provision:

“(c) A copy of the protest served on the Contracting Officer shall be simultaneously furnished by the protester to the Department of the Interior Assistant Solicitor, Acquisitions and Intellectual Property, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 6511, Washington, DC 20240.”
Case: 1:12-cv-00615 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-00615 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-00615 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-00615 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-00615 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-00615 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6
```

            PROVIDENT FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF PROVIDENT
--------------------------------------

The following table sets forth  Provident's  active  subsidiaries as of
the date of this report.

                                                            State of
                                                          Jurisdiction
                                                         Under the Laws
                                                            of which
                                                           Organized
                                                         --------------
The Provident Bank                                            Ohio
 Provident Commercial Group, Inc.                             Ohio
  Provident Auto Leasing Company - Titling Trust            Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental Company LLC 1998-1                  Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental Company LLC 1998-2                  Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 1999-1                          Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 2000-1                          Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 2000-2                          Delaware
  Provident Auto Rental LLC 2001-1                          Delaware
 Red Capital Markets, Inc.                                    Ohio
  Provident Insurance Agency, Inc.                            Ohio
   The Benefits Department, An Incorporated Agency            Ohio
 Red Capital Advisors, LLC                                    Ohio
 Red Fund I Series A, LLC                                   Delaware
 RFI Series A Class 1, LLC                                    Ohio
 Red Mortgage Capital, Inc.                                   Ohio
 Information Leasing Corporation                              Ohio
  Provident Lease Receivables Company LLC                   Delaware
 Procurement Alternatives Corporation                         Ohio
 Capstone Realty Advisors LLC                                 Ohio
 PB Realty, Inc.                                              Ohio
  BB-BCH, LLC                                                 Ohio
 Provident Investment Management Corporation                  Ohio
 Provident Community Development Company, LLC                 Ohio
 PCFS Mortgage Resources, LLC                                 Ohio
 Provident Recap I, LLC                                     Delaware
 AHT Service Corporation                                   California
 Milestone Security Partners, LLC                             Ohio
Provident Investment Advisors, Inc.                           Ohio
Provident Capital Trust I                                   Delaware
Provident Capital Trust II                                  Delaware
Provident Capital Trust III                                 Delaware
Provident Capital Trust IV                                  Delaware
Red Fund I Series B, LLC                                    Delaware
RFI Series B Class 1, LLC                                     Ohio
```
In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 3, 2017. 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 782) entitled 

‘‘An Act to reauthorize the National Internet Crimes Against 

Children Task Force Program, and for other purposes.’’, do 

pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Providing Resources, 

3 Officers, and Technology To Eradicate Cyber Threats to 

4 Our Children Act of 2017’’ or the ‘‘PROTECT Our Chil5 dren Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL INTERNET 

7 CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE 

8 PROGRAM. 

9 Title I of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 

10 (42 U.S.C. 17601 et seq.) is amended in section 107(a)(10) 
2 

•S 782 EAH 

1 (42 U.S.C. 17617(a)(10)), by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2018’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 782 

AMENDMENT
1222.101-71 Contract clauses. ( a ) When applicable, the contracting officer may insert the clause at 1252.222-70, Strikes or Picketing Affecting Timely Completion of the Contract Work, in solicitations and contracts.
( b ) When applicable, the contracting officer may insert the clause at 1252.222-71, Strikes or Picketing Affecting Access to a DOT Facility, in solicitations and contracts.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

)

 Nicholas Martin ) Case No: 12-cv-00215

)

v. )

) Judge: Daniel G. Martin

)

 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. et al )

)

ORDER

After careful consideration, Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class

Action Settlement [55] is granted. Enter Preliminary Approval Order. As set forth in the

Preliminary Approval Order, the following deadlines apply: class notice mailed by 7/31/2013;

deadline for objections/exclusions is 9/30/2013; deadline for submission of claims is 10/7/2013. 

Final approval hearing is set for 11/19/2013 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1350.

Date: July 16, 2013 /s/ 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 1:12-cv-00215 Document #: 57 Filed: 07/16/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:462
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       8,783,052
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,844
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,015,549
<PP&E>                                         508,402
<DEPRECIATION>                                 108,540
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,304,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,087,785
<BONDS>                                      6,700,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,855
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,513,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,304,797
<SALES>                                      3,932,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,932,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,835,165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             102,319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,140,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                   509,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   631,823
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15<F2>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS REPORTED AS "BASIC EPS" AS PRESCRIBED BY SFAS NO. 128.
<F2>EPS IS REPORTED AS "DILUTED EPS" AS PRESCRIBED BY SFAS NO. 128.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

FIRSTMERIT BANK, N.A., as successor-ininterest to the FDIC, as Receiver for Midwest 

Bank and Trust Company,

Plaintiff, 

v.

2200 NORTH ASHLAND, LLC, et al. 

Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-00572

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARILY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys, Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa, hereby

moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), for entry of an Order voluntarily 

dismissing Count V (Mortgage Foreclosure – Lawrence Property) of the Second Amended 

Complaint to Foreclose Mortgages and For Other Relief [DE 102], without prejudice, and with 

leave to reinstate the same within 120 days from the entry thereof. 

Plaintiff further moves this Honorable Court for entry of an Order discharging the 

Receiver, Steven Boyack, from his appointment as receiver over the property located at 1020 W. 

Lawrence Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, and reducing the Receiver’s bond to an amount 

proportionate thereto. 

Respectfully submitted, 

FirstMerit Bank, as successor-in-interest to the 

FDIC, as Receiver for Midwest Bank and Trust 

Company,

By One of Its Attorneys:

/s/ Brianna M. Sansone

bsansone@agdglaw.com
William J. Serritella (ARDC #6210001)

Brianna M. Sansone (ARDC #6298677)

Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa

330 North Wabash, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60611

(312) 828-9600
#### 1332.006-3 Responsibilities.

DOC personnel shall immediately report to the Office of Inspector General any apparent or suspected instances where a contractor's request for advance, partial or progress payments is based on fraud in accordance with DAO 207-10, *Inspector General Investigations.*
#### Sylvia S. Kletter, Respondent, v. George Kletter, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order, entered on September 30, 1960, to the extent that it granted plaintiff wife a counsel fee of $1,500, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to reduce such allowance to the sum of $1,000, and the order is otherwise affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. In view of the early abandonment by defendant-appellant of his opposition to the relief sought by plaintiff wife the amount of counsel fee awarded to her is excessive. Any fee in excess of $1,000 was not warranted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Dynamic Materials Corporation (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yvon Pierre Cariou,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(i)                                     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

July 27, 2007
|        | /s/ Yvon Pierre Cariou                |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Yvon Pierre Cariou                    |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | of Dynamic Materials Corporation      |   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Dynamic Materials Corporation and will be retained by DynamicMaterials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

** **

----
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 2, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-12884

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00056-CV-1-MMP

VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a corporation authorized to do business 

in the state of Florida, 

a.k.a. VALIC, 

Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, 

versus 

DAVID ADEL, 

DANIEL ADEL, 

Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(October 2, 2006)
2

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

David and Daniel Adel appeal the grant of preliminary injunction in this

action against them for misappropriation of trade secrets and enforcement of a

covenant not to compete. Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company, the Adels’

former employer, filed a complaint against the Adels with jurisdiction based on

diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Because we are unable to determine

whether the parties to this case are in fact of diverse citizenship, we remand the

appeal to the district court to determine if jurisdiction exists. 

Although no party to this appeal has raised the question of jurisdiction, “we

are required, even sua sponte, to initiate an inquiry into our subject-matter

jurisdiction whenever we become concerned that it may not exist.” Gilchrist v.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 390 F.3d 1327, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). In a suit

based on diversity of citizenship, the plaintiff is required to allege each party’s

citizenship, and the allegations must show that the parties are diverse. Am.

Motorists Ins. Co. v. Am. Employers’ Ins. Co., 600 F.2d 15, 16 (5th Cir. 1979). In

its complaint, VALIC alleged that it is a corporation “organized pursuant to the

laws of Texas and qualified to do business in the State of Florida” and that the

Adels are residents of Florida. VALIC did not allege a principal place of business. 
3

Because for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be

a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it

has its principal place of business,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), we cannot determine

whether the parties are diverse. We remand this case to the district court, therefore,

to determine if jurisdiction exists. On remand, the district court “can do this by

giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their defective pleadings. See 28

U.S.C. § 1653. Of course, if the amendments show that there is no diversity of

citizenship, the district court must dismiss the action.” Am. Motorists Ins., 600

F.2d at 16. 

REMANDED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin M. Smith, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 796]

Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (Michael L. D’Amico, J.), rendered September 13, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of scheme to defraud in the first degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (two counts), forgery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of scheme to defraud in the first degree (Penal Law § 190.65 [1]), two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (§ 175.35), forgery in the second degree (§ 170.10 [1]), and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (§ 170.25). We reject defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution. Contrary to the contention of defendant, “[t]here is no requirement that [he] personally recite the facts underlying the crime[s]” *(People v Spikes,*28 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 818 [2006]), and “nothing that defendant said or failed to say in [his] allocution negated any element of the offense to which [he] pleaded ... or otherwise called into question [his] admitted guilt” *(People v Seeber,*4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]). The record does not support defendant’s further contention that the plea was the product of coercion by the prosecution. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that there was a discrepancy between the sentence promised as part of the plea bargain and the sentence imposed *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice because the alleged discrepancy did not change defendant’s aggregate sentence and is thus harmless. The further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel does not survive his plea of guilty inasmuch as “[t]here is no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected by any allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney [’s] allegedly poor performance” *(People v Burke,*256 AD2d 1244, 1244 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 851 [1999]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Gorski, J.E, Lunn, Fahey, Green and Fine, JJ.