alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0617 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WARD LAMAR MASON,

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 April 22 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

March 13 2024

03/13/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0617
Exhibit 4.B


EXHIBIT
4.B

 



Form of 5.95% Note
Due 2015 included as Exhibit A to Exhibit 4.A of this current report on
Form 8-K.
#### Brasfield *vs.*Baugh &c.

Appear. Qase 106.

Error to the Madison Circuit; French Judsce.

*Practice. Appeal Bond. Parties. Jurisdiction) Time.*

Too late to object that one nt sever-whom justice has rendered judgment, in\ippla"nite bowl, to the circuit court, bambeen tried *in*circuit court, and in an**ealTatut remanded.

*fJapcrton,*for plaintiff; Turner, for defendant.

*May*4.

Judge Underwood

delivered the opinion of 'the Court.

This cause was before this court, and an opinion delivered in December, 1880, reversing the judgment of the circuit court. Upon the return of the cause the circuit court dismissed the apPeaL on motion, because Adams, against whom and Brasfield the judgment had been rendered, jointly, by the justice, did not unite in executing the appeal bond. We do not deem it important .to decide whether one of two or more defendants against whom a justice of the peace has rendered a joint judgment, could separately prosecute an appeal to the circuit court, prior to the passage of the act of the Slst December, 1831, which expressly provides ^01' the case. However we might decide the point, if made in proper time, we are clear that Baugh &c. delayed making it in this cause until it was too late. A trial took place in .the circuit court, then in this court without objection in consequence of Adams having failed to unite in the appeal bond. Both parties had staked .their ease upon the merits, and therefore we think it was erroneous to permit them to go back and take exceptions to the regularity of the proceeding when for any thing which appears to the contrary, Baugh 8 c. have a security upon the appeal bond filed, in case they ultimately succeed.

Wherefore the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for proceedings in conformity to this opinion.

The plaintiff in error must recover his costs.
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1455.1 Purpose and administration. ( a ) The purpose of this part is to specify requirements and definitions for the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP).
( b ) VPA-HIP provides, within funding limits, grants to State and tribal governments to encourage owners and operators of privately-held farm, ranch, and forest land to voluntarily make that land available for access by the public for wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing under programs administered by State and tribal governments. VPA-HIP is not an entitlement program and no grant will be made unless the application is acceptable to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). CCC may reject a application for any reason deemed sufficient by CCC.
( c ) The regulations in this part are administered under the general supervision and direction of the Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
[75 FR 39140, July 8, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 44641, Aug. 1, 2014]
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00351-CV

Charlotte Wilson

v.

Bay Harbor Channel Owners Association, Inc.

On Appeal from the

156th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas

Trial Cause No. S-19-5107CV-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant, Charolette Wilson.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 19, 2019
#### § 160.24 Inspection on request.

Insofar as it may be practicable, official inspectors shall sample, analyze, classify, or grade any naval stores at the request of any interested person, as provided for by the act and in accordance with the provisions in this part.
2008-2011 Non-road Mobile Emissions Reductions (categories for which NONROAD Model was used to estimate emis

(pounds per summer day)

Total VOC Total VOC

2008 2011

AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT 33.2 28.2 -5

COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT 3661.8 3432.4 -229.4

CONSTRUCTION AND MINING EQUIPMENT 1510.4 1327 -183.4

INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 1623.8 982.2 -641.6

LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT (COM) 6518.6 5906 -612.6

LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT (RES) 7397 7067.4 -329.6

LOGGING EQUIPMENT 24.4 25.2 0.8

PLEASURE CRAFT 15537.8 13717.6 -1820.2

RAILROAD EQUIPMENT 0 0 0

RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT 4153 4030.4 -122.6

TOTALS (ppsd) 40460 36532.8 -3927.2

TOTALS (tpsd) 20.2 18.3 -2.0

9.7 % reduction

Total NOx Total NOx

2008 2011

AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT 280.2 256.2 -24

COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT 2731 2613 -118

CONSTRUCTION AND MINING EQUIPMENT 10417.2 9232.2 -1185

INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 7392 5061.2 -2330.8

LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT (COM) 1805.8 1715.2 -90.6

LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT (RES) 669.4 633.8 -35.6

LOGGING EQUIPMENT 44 33.4 -10.6

PLEASURE CRAFT 2037.8 2222.4 184.6

RAILROAD EQUIPMENT 0 0 0

RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT 253.8 261.8 8

TOTALS (ppsd) 25631.2 22029.2 -3602

TOTALS (tpsd) 12.8 11.0 -1.8

14.1 % reduction
odel was used to estimate emissions)

% reduction

% reduction
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed November 2, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1320

Lower Tribunal Nos. 09-50922, F08-34057, 

F85-32539, F85-32540, F85-32541, & F86-4671

________________

Juan Francisco Vega,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida, et al.,

Respondents.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction—Petition for Belated Appeal.

Juan Francisco Vega, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney 

General, for respondent The State of Florida.

Before SCALES, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Juan Francisco Vega petitions for belated appeal of a trial court order 

finding no probable cause to release Vega from his involuntary civil 

commitment under the Jimmy Ryce Act. See § 394.918(1), Fla. Stat. (2022). 

Because the instant proceedings are civil in nature, Vega is not entitled to 

relief in this Court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c). See

In re Commitment of May, 975 So. 2d 579, 580-81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). 

Further, because Vega’s “petition presents a factual issue about whether he 

timely instructed his attorney to file an appeal,” Vega must first file a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court “so that the trial court may resolve 

the factual issues that may entitle him to a belated appeal” in this Court. Id.

at 581-82.

Accordingly, we dismiss the instant petition for lack of jurisdiction, 

without prejudice to Vegas filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 

trial court.

Petition dismissed.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony J. Affuso, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of UGS Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Omitted as permitted;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: August 15, 2005         /s/     Anthony J. Affuso   Anthony J. Affuso   President and Chief Executive Officer  
53
#### § 1735.71 Nonrural areas.

Loan funds may be approved for the acquisition and improvement of facilities to serve nonrural subscribers only if the principal purpose of the loan is to furnish and improve rural service and only if the use of loan funds to serve nonrural subscribers is necessary and incidental to the principal purpose of the loan. For example, when the acquisition of an existing system located in and serving a nonrural area is necessary to serve as the nucleus of an expanded system to furnish area coverage service in rural areas, the loan may include funds to finance the acquisition. Approval for the use of loan funds in these circumstances shall be made only on a case by case basis by the Administrator.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 24-0034

_________________

ERIN BILLS,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 v.

KRISTIN COOPER,

 Respondent and Appellant.

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 Brenda R. Gilbert, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 4 2024

09/04/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0034
#### §§ 1752.20-1752.24 [Reserved]
#### § 18.7 Reports.

Within 6 months of the program going into effect and thereafter at least annually, the President shall submit a summary report to the Secretary on implementation and operation of the program. The Secretary may request additional reports as he deems advisable.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1707 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1707

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
302 East Green Street in Champaign, Illinois, as the ``James R. Burgess 
                       Jr. Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JAMES R. BURGESS JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 302 East Green Street in Champaign, Illinois, shall be known 
and designated as the ``James R. Burgess Jr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James R. 
Burgess Jr. Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10342 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SHANNON LYNCH COLBERT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-154-A-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Shannon Lynch Colbert pleaded guilty to embezzlement from an insurance business which affects interstate commerce, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1033(b). Colbert appeals her sentence arguing that the district court erred in enhancing her offense level by two levels based on her abuse of a position of trust. Colbert was a claims examiner who had signature authority up to at least $5000, without supervision, and access to files that she removed. These attributes put her in a superior position to the general public to commit the offense, thereby putting her in a positionof trust which she then abused. United States v. Brown , 941 F.2d

1300, 1305 (5th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find that the district court did not clearly err in imposing the enhancement. See United States v.
Brown , 7 F.3d 1155, 1161 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1993); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3; see also Brown , 941 F.2d at 1304-05.
AFFIRMED.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. DIAMOND HOSIERY CORP.

No. 6705.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 7, 1954.

Decided Jan. 27, 1954.

Louis Schwartz, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and John C. Rohrbaugh, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Albert Adams, New York City (George A. Ferris and Ferris & Adams, New York City, on the brief), for respondent.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board which directed the Diamond Hosiery Corporation of High Point, N. C., to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices and to reinstate with back pay one Steelman whom it found to have been discriminatorily discharged because of union activities. The facts are fully set forth in the decision and order of the board and the intermediate report of the trial examiner and need not be repeated here. We have given careful consideration to the briefs and arguments of counsel, but we cannot say that the findings and order of the board are not supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. The board’s order will accordingly be enforced.

Order enforced.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28795]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Notice

Time and Date:  10 a.m., Wednesday, November 17, 2010.

Place:  Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

Status:  Closed.

Matters To Be Considered

    1. Pilot Programs (3). Closed pursuant to some or all of the 
following: Exemptions (4) and (8).
    2. Insurance Appeals (3). Closed pursuant to some or all of the 
following: Exemptions (4) and (6).
    3. Personnel (2). Closed pursuant to some or all of the following: 
Exemption (2).
    4. Consideration of Supervisory Activities (4). Closed pursuant to 
some or all of the following: Exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii) and 9(B).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,
Board Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28795 Filed 11-10-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
#### John M. ROSE, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2007-7170.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 10, 2007.

John M. Rose, of Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

David M. Hibey, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keis-ler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Deborah A. By-num, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski, Deputy *303Assistant General Counsel, and Christopher P. McNamee, Staff Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Before LOURIE and LINN, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

John M. Rose (“Rose”) appeals from a final judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), affirming a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied entitlement to service connection for acquired immune deficiency syndrome and associated psychosis, claimed as human immunodefieney virus. *Rose v. Nicholson,*No. 04-2121, 2006 WL 3838224 (Vet.App. Nov. 22, 2006). Because Rose’s arguments on appeal relate to issues over which we do not have jurisdiction, *see*38 U.S.C. § 7292, we *dismiss.*

This court’s jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Veterans Court is strictly limited to questions of law; we have no jurisdiction to review “(A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular ease.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Although Rose contends that the Veterans Court’s decision involved the validity or interpretation of 10 U.S.C. § 1219, that statute governs the validity of signed statements relating to the origin, incur-rence, or aggravation of a disease or injury. Neither that statute nor the type of statements it covers were presented to, addressed by, or relied upon by the Board or the Veterans Court. Rather, the “statements” that Rose points to as viola-tive of section 1219 were actually the arguments that Rose presented to the agency in an effort to establish that his disability was contracted while serving with the Army National Guard in May 1992. Because the Veterans Court’s decision did not involve the validity or interpretation of 10 U.S.C. § 1219, Rose’s arguments based on that statute are not relevant to this appeal.

Rose’s remaining arguments all relate to error in the Board’s finding that there was no service connection. Such arguments are directed to factual determinations and the application of law to facts — issues that exceed the scope of our jurisdiction. Accordingly, because Rose fails to present an issue over which we have jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.

COSTS

No costs.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Resource: NHSC Poster      

# Resource: NHSC Poster

This poster (PDF, 1 page) is available to educate potential applicants about the opportunities available with the National Health Service Corps, which provides funding to healthcare workers in exchange for service.

http://www.nhsc.hrsa.gov/downloads/nhsc_8.5x11_poster_2016-06-27.pdf?utm_source=Youth.gov&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources&utm_medium=federal-links
§ 1777.1 General. ( a ) This part outlines Rural Utilities Service (RUS) policies and procedures for making Water and Waste Facility loans and grants authorized under Section 306C of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(c)), as amended.
( b ) Agency officials will maintain liaison with officials of other federal, Tribal, state, regional, and local development agencies to coordinate related programs to achieve rural development objectives.
( c ) Agency officials will cooperate with appropriate Tribal and state agencies in making loans and/or grants that support Tribal and state strategies for rural area development.
( d ) Funds specifically appropriated for Tribal members in accordance with this part will be considered for use by Federally Recognized Tribes regardless of whether State development strategies include Tribes and their reservations. Tribal members residing on such reservations must have an equal opportunity to participate in this program.
( e ) Entities eligible for a grant under the 306D Water Systems for Rural and Native Villages in Alaska Program are not eligible to receive grant assistance under this regulation from funds appropriated for Tribal members as referenced in paragraph (d) of this section.
( f ) Federal statutes provide for extending the Agency's financial programs without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, age, or physical/mental handicap (provided the participant possesses the capacity to enter into legal contracts).