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

Case No. DA 20-0050

MATTHEW MONFORTON,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

JONATHAN MOTL,

Respondent and Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING EXTENTION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S 

OPENING BRIEF

_________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court,

Gallatin County

District Court Cause No. DV 19-224

The Honorable Rienne H. McElyea, Presiding

__________________________________________________________________

Appellant Matthew Monforton filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time to and including April 27, 2020, within which to file Appellant’s Opening 

Brief. Appellant has represented to the Court that the Appellee’s counsel have been 

contacted and do not object. Good cause showing, the Motion is GRANTED.

Appellant shall have through and including April 27, 2020, within which to 

file Appellant’s Opening Brief.

Dated this _______ day of March, 2020.

_________________________

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 27 2020

03/27/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0050
§ 1.181-6 Effective/applicability date. ( a ) *In general.* Except as otherwise provided in this section, §§ 1.181-1 through 1.181-5 apply to productions the first day of principal photography for which occurs on or after September 29, 2011. Paragraphs 1.181-1(a)(1)(ii), (a)(6), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(vi), and (c)(2) of § 1.181-1 apply to productions to which section 181 is applicable and for which the first day of principal photography or in-between animation occurs on or after December 7, 2012.
( b ) *Pre-effective date productions.* For any taxable year for which the period of limitation on refund or credit under section 6511 has not expired, the owner may apply §§ 1.181-1 through 1.181-5 to any production to which section 181 applies and for which the first day of principal photography (or in-between animation) occurred before December 7, 2012, provided the owner applies all relevant provisions of §§ 1.181-1 through 1.181-5 to the production.
[T.D. 9603, 77 FR 72924, Dec. 7, 2012]
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 203

Notifying the President of the United States of the election of a Sergeant

at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 19 (legislative day, APRIL 11), 1994

Mr. MITCHELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Notifying the President of the United States of the election

of a Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

1 Resolved, That the President of the United States be

2 notified of the election of the Honorable Robert Laurent

3 Benoit as Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Sen4 ate.

Æ
# Amtsblatt L 281/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0642 |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | L 281 |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Rechtsvorschriften | 63. Jahrgang28. August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0642

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

L 281

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Rechtsvorschriften

63. Jahrgang28. August 2020

---

| Inhalt | | II   Rechtsakte ohne Gesetzescharakter | Seite |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONALE ÜBEREINKÜNFTE |
| | * | Unterrichtung über das Inkrafttreten des Übereinkommens zur Beendigung bilateraler Investitionsschutzverträge zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union | 1 |

Inhalt

II   Rechtsakte ohne Gesetzescharakter

Seite

INTERNATIONALE ÜBEREINKÜNFTE

*

Unterrichtung über das Inkrafttreten des Übereinkommens zur Beendigung bilateraler Investitionsschutzverträge zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union

1

| DE | Bei Rechtsakten, deren Titel in magerer Schrift gedruckt sind, handelt es sich um Rechtsakte der laufenden Verwaltung im Bereich der Agrarpolitik, die normalerweise nur eine begrenzte Geltungsdauer haben.
  Rechtsakte, deren Titel in fetter Schrift gedruckt sind und denen ein Sternchen vorangestellt ist, sind sonstige Rechtsakte. |
| --- | --- |

DE

Bei Rechtsakten, deren Titel in magerer Schrift gedruckt sind, handelt es sich um Rechtsakte der laufenden Verwaltung im Bereich der Agrarpolitik, die normalerweise nur eine begrenzte Geltungsdauer haben.

Rechtsakte, deren Titel in fetter Schrift gedruckt sind und denen ein Sternchen vorangestellt ist, sind sonstige Rechtsakte.

---

II Rechtsakte ohne Gesetzescharakter

INTERNATIONALE ÜBEREINKÜNFTE

| 28.8.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 281/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2020

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 281/1

---

Unterrichtung über das Inkrafttreten des Übereinkommens zur Beendigung bilateraler Investitionsschutzverträge zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union

Das am 5. Mai 2020
   (1) in Brüssel unterzeichnete Übereinkommen zur Beendigung bilateraler Investitionsschutzverträge zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union tritt gemäß Artikel 16 Absatz 1 des Übereinkommens am 29. August 2020 in Kraft.

1

---

(1)  
  ABl. L 169 vom 29.5.2020.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 15.1    LETTER RE: UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
and related Prospectuses of our report dated October 27, 1999, relating to the
unaudited consolidated condensed interim financial statements of STERIS
Corporation and Subsidiaries that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 1999:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     Registration
        Number                                        Description                                         Filing Date
  -------------------     ---------------------------------------------------------------------    ---------------------------
<S>                       <C>                                                                      <C>
  333-65155               Form S-8 Registration Statement -- STERIS Corporation Long Term          October 1, 1998
                          Incentive Stock Plan

  333-55839               Form S-8 Registration Statement -- Nonqualified Stock Option             June 2, 1998
                          Agreement between STERIS Corporation and John Masefield and the
                          Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement between STERIS Corporation and
                          Thomas J. DeAngelo

  333-32005               Form S-8 Registration Statement -- STERIS Corporation 1997 Stock         July 24, 1997
                          Option Plan

  333-06529               Form S-3 Registration Statement -- STERIS Corporation                    June 21, 1996

  333-01610               Post-effective Amendment to Form S-4 on Form S-8 -- STERIS               May 16, 1996
                          Corporation

  33-91444                Form S-8 Registration Statement -- STERIS Corporation 1994 Equity        April 24, 1995
                          Compensation Plan

  33-91442                Form S-8 Registration Statement -- STERIS Corporation 1994               April 24, 1995
                          Nonemployee Directors Equity Compensation Plan

  33-55976                Form S-8 Registration Statement -- STERIS Corporation 401(k)Plan         December 21, 1992

  33-55258                Form S-8 Registration Statement -- STERIS Corporation Amended and        December 4, 1992
                          Restated Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan
</TABLE>

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our reports are not a part
of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within the
meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

                                                    Ernst & Young LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
November 12, 1999
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 16, 2024

NO. 03

- 22

- 00736

- CV

Sarah Cook , Appellant

v.

Texas Highway Walls, LLC , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRN E, JUSTICES TRIANA AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART

–

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on October 24, 2022 . Having reviewed

the record and the parti es’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the

court’s order

. Therefore, the Court affirms in part and reverses the trial co u rt’s order and

remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court ’ s opin ion

.

Each party shall bear its own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the

court below.
#### §§ 1.386-1.400 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2571
TIBOR GUENTHER HORWATH; CHRISTEL HORWATH, Petitioners - Appellants, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 02-16927) Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 29, 2005 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tibor Guenther Horwath, Christel Horwath, Appellants Pro Se. Andrea R. Tebbets, Karen Grace Gregory, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tibor and Christel Horwath appeal from the tax court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s assessment of deficiencies and accuracy-related penalties with respect to their 1997 and 1998 federal income tax liability. Our review of the record and the tax court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. SeeHorwath v. Comm’r, IRS , No. 02-16927 (U.S. Tax Ct. Sept. 21, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

                          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 Quarterly Report of American HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed  with
 the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
 Dr. J. W. Stucki, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant
 to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as adopted pursuant to S 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
 of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

           (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  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  result  of
           operations of the Company.



 /s/ Dr. J. W. Stucki

 Dr. J. W. Stucki

 Chief Executive Officer

 August 15, 2005
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCFD Study of NACA 0018 Airfoil with Flow ControlThe abilities of two different Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes codes to predict the effects of an active flow control device are evaluated. The flow control device consists of a blowing slot located on the upper surface of an NACA 0018 airfoil, near the leading edge. A second blowing slot present on the airfoil near mid-chord is not evaluated here. Experimental results from a wind tunnel test show that a slot blowing with high momentum coefficient will increase the lift of the airfoil (compared to no blowing) and delay flow separation. A slot with low momentum coefficient will decrease the lift and induce separation even at low angles of attack. Two codes, CFL3D and FUN3D, are used in two-dimensional computations along with several different turbulence models. Two of these produced reasonable results for this flow, when run fully turbulent. A more advanced transition model failed to predict reasonable results, but warrants further study using different inputs. Including inviscid upper and lower tunnel walls in the simulations was found to be important in obtaining pressure distributions and lift coefficients that best matched experimental data. A limited number of three-dimensional computations were also performed.Document ID20170004500Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsEggert, Christopher A.*(Purdue Univ. West Lafayette, IN, United States)*Rumsey, Christopher L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredMay 9, 2017Publication DateApril 1, 2017Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And ThermodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2017-219602NF1676L-26639L-20799Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 109492.02.07.01.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20170004500.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 243

Recognizing the REALTORS Land Institute on the occasion of its 50th

Anniversary.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 14 (legislative day, JULY 11), 1994

Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr.

COCHRAN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. SIMON, and Mr. SIMPSON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

OCTOBER 8 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Committee discharged

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the REALTORS Land Institute on the

occasion of its 50th Anniversary.

Whereas, in 1944, the REALTORS Land Institute was

founded by 20 land specialists who met at the Drake

Hotel in Chicago, Illinois, to establish a national organization that would provide education, information, marketing opportunities, and broker networking to enhance the

ability of their members to conduct business as recognized professional land use specialists and, through collective action, preserve private property rights;
2

•SRES 243 CDS

Whereas the REALTORS Land Institute has been an affiliate of the National Association of REALTORS for 50

years;

Whereas, in 1994, the REALTORS Land Institute celebrates 50 years of serving land owners, users, and realtors throughout the United States and Canada;

Whereas the REALTORS Land Institute members have developed international marketing capabilities and networks

throughout the world;

Whereas the REALTORS Land Institute is comprised of

members who subscribe to a strict code of ethics and to

just and equitable principles in real estate transactions;

Whereas the REALTORS Land Institute encourages continuing education and rewards members who complete an

extensive education program and service to the land industry with a national designation of Accredited Land

Consultant (ALC); and

Whereas the REALTORS Land Institute is a national professional trade association, dedicated to advancing the effective use of our most precious commodity, land: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate recognizes the REAL2 TORS Land Institute on the occasion of its 50th Anni3 versary.

4 SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit

5 a copy of this resolution to the REALTORS Land

6 Institute.

Æ
§ 1.509(b)-1 Continuation of private foundation status. ( a ) *In general.* If an organization is a private foundation (within the meaning of section 509(a)) on October 9, 1969, or becomes a private foundation on any subsequent date, such organization shall be treated as a private foundation for all periods after October 9, 1969, or after such subsequent date, unless its status as such is terminated under section 507. Therefore, if an organization was described in section 501(c)(3) and was a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) on October 9, 1969, it shall be treated as a private foundation for all periods thereafter, even though it may also satisfy the requirements of an organization described in some other paragraph of section 501(c). For example, if on October 9, 1969, an organization was described in section 501(c)(3), but because of its activities, it could also have qualified as an organization described in section 501(c)(4), such organization will continue to be treated as a private foundation, if it was a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) on October 9, 1969.
( b ) *Taxable private foundations.* If an organization is a private foundation on October 9, 1969, and it is determined that it is not exempt under section 501(a) as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) as of any date after October 9, 1969, such organization, even though it may operate thereafter as a taxable entity, will continue to be treated as a private foundation unless its status as such is terminated under section 507. For example, X organization is a private foundation on October 9, 1969. It is subsequently determined that, as of July 1, 1972, X is no longer exempt under section 501(a) as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) because, for example, it has not conformed its governing instrument pursuant to section 508(e). X will continue to be treated as a private foundation after July 1, 1972, unless its status as such is terminated under section 507. However, if an organization is not exempt under section 501(a) as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) on October 9, 1969, then it will not be treated as a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) by reason of section 509(b), unless it becomes a private foundation on a subsequent date.
[T.D. 7212, 37 FR 21924, Oct. 17, 1972]
#### § 1.41-5 Basic research for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986. [Reserved]
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2013-0090

 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM149AD

747-25-2425 --- 8/25/78

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4579



# 
J OSEPH T ITO G RIN , a/k/a Jo Jo,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-98-257) Submitted: July 10, 2001 Decided: July 31, 2001 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Joseph M. Wilson, Jr., BROWNE, FLEBOTTE, WILSON & HORN, P.L.L.C., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM:Joseph Tito Grin appeals from the sentence imposed for his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine. The judgment and commitment order was entered on July 18, 2000. On August 11, 2000, Grin filed a notice of appeal. No extension of time to appealwas granted by the district court, and Grin did not request an extension of time. In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal withinten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). With or without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of this time up to thirty days upon a showing of good cause or excusable neglect. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). If the defendant files his notice of appeal outside the ten-day appeal period, but within the thirty-day extension period, the district court must make factual findings concerning whether there was excusable neglect that warrants an extension of the appeal period. See Reyes , 759 F.2d at 353-54. Grin filed his notice of appeal twenty-four days after the district court entered its judgment. While this filing was after the ten-day limit, it was within the thirty-day extension period applicable upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Because the district court made no factual findings on this issue, we remand the case to the district court with instructions to make factual findings concerning whether there was excusable neglect or good cause warranting anextension of the ten-day appeal period. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS 2 U NITED S TATES v. G RIN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4597

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DREW ELLIOTT MCGILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,

Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00204-WLO)

Submitted: January 9, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States

Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM: 

Drew Elliott McGill pled guilty to one count of

possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). On appeal, he

challenges the district court’s imposition of the statutory maximum

sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We find that the district court properly applied the

Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing

factors before imposing the 120-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). Additionally, we find that the

sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445

F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.

2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness

accorded within-guidelines sentence). Accordingly, we affirm

McGill’s sentence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED