alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# QRIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 22-0443 RAMES, INC. FORMERLY d/b/a CENTRAL INS. AGENCY,

Petitioner,

v. MONTANA ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, FLATHEAD COUNTY HONORABLE ROBERT B. ALLISON, Presiding,

Respondent. 

### AUG 

## 1 6 2022 Bowen Greenwooa Clerk of Supreme Court State. rlf RtInntarla ORDER

PetitionerRames, Inc., seeks awrit ofsupervisorycontrol overtheEleventhJudicial District Court, Flathead County, in its Cause No. DV-15-2020-521. Rames, Inc., alleges that the court erred in its rulings in the court's February 28, 2022 Order Re: Summary Judgment, April 26, 2022 Order Re: Rernaining Issues, and August 9, 2022 Order Regarding Witnesses and New Defense. Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when urgency or ernergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a motion to substitute a judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Consistent with Rule 14(3), it is the Court's practice to refrain from exercising supervisory control when the petitioner has an adequaterernedy ofappeal. E.g., Bucklesv. SeventhJudicialDist. Court,No. OP 16-0517, 386 Mont. 393, 386 P.3d 545 (table) (Oct. 18, 2016); Lichte v. Mont. Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0482, 385 Mont. 540, 382 P.3d 868 (table) (Aug. 24, 2016). 08/16/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0443

### Rames, Inc., offers no argument as to why the normal appeal process would be

inadequate in this case. Itthushas not metthethresholdrequirements for consideration of apetition for writ ofsupervisory control underM. R.App. P. 14(3). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ ofSupervisory Control is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for Petitioner, all counsel ofrecord in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, CauseNo. DV-15-2020-521, and the Honorable Robert B.Allison, presiding.

„41--• DATED this I-4

0
. day ofAugust, 2022.

ChiefJustice



## 194 AI J ut_

Justices

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     WINSTON RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULES
       FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                     000815274
<NAME> WINSTON RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSDIARIES                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           1,392,000
<SECURITIES>                                     468,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,676,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     100,000
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 10,684,000
<PP&E>                                           1,284,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   609,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   11,881,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,881,000
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         32,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,679,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     11,881,000
<SALES>                                          44,329,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 44,329,000
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    34,850,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,197,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,330,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,072,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,258,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,258,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .36
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

IRS redesignated the following sections to appear below the undesignated center heading “Regulations Applicable to Certain Bonds Sold Prior to July 8, 1997” and preceding the undesignated center heading “Deductions for Personal Exemptions.” See 62 FR 25507 and 25513, May 9, 1997 for the specific sections involved in the redesignation.

#### § 1.403(b)-1 General overview of taxability under an annuity contract purchased by a section 501(c)(3) organization or a public school.

Section 403(b) and §§ 1.403(b)-2 through 1.403(b)-10 provide rules for the Federal income tax treatment of an annuity purchased for an employee by an employer that is either a tax-exempt entity under section 501(c)(3) (relating to certain religious, charitable, scientific, or other types of organizations) or a public school, or for a minister described in section 414(e)(5)(A). See section 403(a) (relating to qualified annuities) for rules regarding the taxation of an annuity purchased under a qualified annuity plan that meets the requirements of section 404(a)(2), and see section 403(c) (relating to nonqualified annuities) for rules regarding the taxation of other types of annuities.

[T.D. 9340, 72 FR 41141, July 26, 2007]
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

Inconnection with the Amendment No. 2 toEMRISE Corporation’s (the “Company”) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifyin their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Vice President Finance andAdministration of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

1.             the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.             the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: April 15, 2010 | By:  | /s/ CARMINE T. OLIVA                                   |
|----------------------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |      | Carmine T. Oliva                                       |
|                       |      | Chief Executive Officer (principal executive  officer) |
|                       |      |                                                   |
|                       |      |                                                   |
| Dated: April 15, 2010 | By:  | /s/ D. JOHN DONOVAN                                    |
|                       |      | D. John Donovan                                        |
|                       |      | Chief Financial Officer (principal financial  officer) |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
**Exhibit
      31.02**








**CERTIFICATION**





I,
      Dennis
      E. Bunday, certify that:





1.  I
      have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Williams Controls Inc.;





2.  Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.  Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report;





4.  The
      registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
      and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





a)  Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
      and
      procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
      is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this report is being prepared;





b)  Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
      presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this
      report based on such evaluation; and





c)  Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that
      has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.  The
      registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
      registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a)  All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information; and





b)  Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting.











Date:  August
                10, 2007
            
            /s/ DENNIS
              E. BUNDAYDennis
              E. BundayChief
              Financial Officer
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT OF SALE

         This Amendment to Contract of Sale ("Amendment") is made and entered
into as of March 6, 2003 by and between UCV, L.P., a California limited
partnership having an address at 7415 Carroll Road, Suite C, San Diego,
California 92121 ("Seller") and Mark S. Schmidt Living Trust utd 2/5/92, having
an address at 10731 Treena Street, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92131
("Purchaser").

         Whereas, Seller and Purchaser entered into that certain Contract of
Sale dated February 14, 2003 (the "Agreement") with respect to the matters set
forth therein. The Agreement is incorporated herein and made part hereof by this
reference.

         Whereas, Seller and Purchaser desire to enter into this Amendment for
purposes of amending the Purchase Price as set forth in the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Purchaser agree to amend the Agreement
as follows:

1. Definitions. Any capitalized term used but not defined herein shall have the
same meaning assigned to it in the Agreement.

2. Purchase Price Amendment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the
Agreement, the Purchase Price for the Property shall be the sum of Fifty-Eight
Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($58,400,000.00).

3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one
and the same document.

4. Force And Effect. All other terms not amended hereby shall remain unchanged
and of full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the date first above written.

           SELLER:
                           UCV, L.P., a California limited partnership

                           By:      UCVNV, Inc., a Nevada corporation,
                                    its general partner

                                    By:      _______________________
                                             Name:    Harold S. Elkan
                                             Title:   President

        PURCHASER:
                           Mark S. Schmidt Living Trust udt 2/5/92


                           By:  _____________________________________
                                    Mark S. Schmidt, Trustee
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          22,505
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,531
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,036
<PP&E>                                             235
<DEPRECIATION>                                      14
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,733
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,289
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,758
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,514)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,514)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,514)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### PATRICK O’FARRELL, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

Kansas City Court of Appeals,

June 12, 1911.

APPEAL AND ERROR: Second Appeal: Sufficiency of Evidence. Where, on second appeal the evidence lacking, for which a new trial was granted and appeal taken hy plaintiff, is supplied, the judgment will he affirmed. (S. c., 136 Mo. App. 353.)

Appeal from Jackson Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *William O. Thomas,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*John H. Lucas*and *Ben T. Hardin*for appellant.

*Guthrie, Gamble & Street, Boyle & Howell*and *A. F. Smith*for respondent. ‘

*619ELLISON, J.

— Plaintiff's action is for personal injury by being caught between passing street cars in Argentine, Kansas. He recovered judgment in the trial court.

The case as tried concedes that plaintiff was negligent, and reliance was placed by him in the humanitarian rule. It was before us on a former occasion on plaintiff’s appeal. He had secured a verdict but the court set it aside and granted a new trial. We affirmed the order, and the case will be found reported in 136 Mo. App. 353, to which we refer for a statement of the facts. On the trial from the result of which this appeal was taken, evidence lacking in the first trial was supplied and the trial court sustained plaintiff’s verdict.

There is complaint made of instructions refused and modified for defendant, principally as to the contributory negligence of plaintiff. We think the action taken by the court was proper. As stated above, the case was based, practically, on a concession of plaintiff’s negligence. We have not discovered any error and affirm the judgment.

All concur.
#### Joan L. Smith *v.*The Travelers Indemnity Company

Argued June 4

decided June *4,*1968

*Leonard I. Shankman,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*George W. Ripley,*for the appellee (defendant).

It appearing that the plaintiff in the above-entitled case has failed to prosecute her appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County with proper diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed.

The appellant filed a motion for reargument which was denied.-
Cite as 2014 Ark. 358



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 17 — PROFESSIONAL PRACTICUM RULE Opinion Delivered September 4, 2014

PER CURIAM The purpose of this order is to memorialize the application fee that has been set in the amount of $125.00 for applicants to take the professional practicum established by Administrative Order No. 17. Remittances of the fee shall be made by money order or cashier's check payable to the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
#### § 1.269-7 Relationship of section 269 to sections 382 and 383 after the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Section 269 and §§ 1.269-1 through 1.269-5 may be applied to disallow a deduction, credit, or other allowance notwithstanding that the utilization or amount of a deduction, credit, or other allowance is limited or reduced under section 382 or 383 and the regulations thereunder. However, the fact that the amount of taxable income or tax that may be offset by a deduction, credit, or other allowance is limited under section 382(a) or 383 and the regulations thereunder is relevant to the determination of whether the principal purpose of an acquisition is the evasion or avoidance of Federal income tax.

[T.D. 8388, 57 FR 346, Jan. 6, 1992]
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-84,404-01

EX P ARTE JES US CERVANDO LOP EZ, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 01-CR- 00000305-D IN THE 103RD DISTRICT COURT

F ROM CAM ERON COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 6 7 ). Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murde r and se ntence d to imprisonment for life. On Dec ember 16, 2015, an order desig nating issues was signe d by the trial court. The habea s
rec ord has been forwa

rded to this Court prema turely
. We rema nd this appl i ca t ion to the 103rd District Court of Cameron County to allow the trial judge to c omplete an evidentiar y investiga tion and ente r finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law. This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. Theissues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this o rd er . A s upplemental transcr ipt containing all

aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of t he date of t his order
. Any extensions of ti me shall be obtained f

rom this Court.
Filed: January

27, 2016 Do not publish
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8033 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8033

   To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the information 
  required to be included in a certification by an agency that a rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
                            small entities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 17, 2024

 Mr. Luetkemeyer (for himself, Mr. Meuser, Mr. Mann, and Ms. Salazar) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Small Business, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the information 
  required to be included in a certification by an agency that a rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
                            small entities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Transparency for Small 
Businesses Act''.

SEC. 2. INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN A CERTIFICATION BY AN 
              AGENCY THAT A RULE WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC 
              IMPACT ON A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SMALL ENTITIES.

    Section 605 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
    ``(d) The certification under subsection (b) shall include, at a 
minimum, the following:
            ``(1) The approximate number of small entities, if any, 
        impacted by the rule, and an identification of any such small 
        entity (including the North American Industry Classification 
        System code, if applicable).
            ``(2) An estimate of the total cost of implementing the 
        rule, including the cost of compliance with the rule, which may 
        be measured as an estimated percentage of the revenue of the 
        small entities determined to be impacted under paragraph (1), 
        or another reasonable measure of economic significance.
            ``(3) A determination of whether the costs of compliance 
        under paragraph (2) represent a significant economic impact, 
        and the criteria used to make such determination.
            ``(4) A determination of the number of small entities that 
        will experience a significant economic impact as a result of 
        the rule, whether that number is substantial, and the criteria 
        used to make such determinations.''.
                                 <all>
```