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

No. DA 21-0146

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JUSTIN DOUGLAS DAY,

Defendant and Appellant. 

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until July 5, 2021, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 7 2021

06/07/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0146
Comments in Response to 

"Final rule; request for comments" 

Docket: FAA-2014-0334 Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-021-AD 

Comments have been received in response to: "Final rule; requestfor comments," 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. 

(Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted. 

Once you have made your determination, please fill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the 

appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, 

if necessary. Then include your name and the date in the spaces provided, and return it to the 

AD directorate focal. 

The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: 

Arm en Vartanian, Mike Marzke, and a Anonymous commenter 

(Please check one) 

D These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration 

or change of this AD. 

~ These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of 

additional regulatory action. (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual 

FAA-IR-M-8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.) 

ll!/z£1 

Name: Date: 

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.) 

Rev 0 (9/08)
#### H. S. ECKELS & CO. v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. L-290.

Decided June 5, 1933]

*Mr. Theodore B. Benson*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. Lisle A.*Smith, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Charles B. Rugff,*for the defendant.

*160Littleton, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

The only question in this case is whether a document filed by plaintiff August 31,1920, entitled “ Claim for abatement ”, asking that the entire additional assessment of $6,136.88 be abated on the ground that the assessment was without warrant of law and illegal was a claim in abatement within the meaning of section 611 of the Revenue Act of 1928 which provides that if any tax was assessed prior to June 2, 1924, and within the period of limitation properly applicable thereto and “ if a claim in abatement was filed, * * * and if the collection of any part thereof was stayed ”, the payment of any part of such tax shall not be considered as an overpayment. We think the claim for abatement filed comes within the provisions of section 611. This section does not require that the claim in abatement contemplated therein shall be a claim fully complying with the statute and the regulations of the Treasury Department, but contemplates any claim which may be filed having for its purpose the abatement of the tax which operates to stay collection of the tax assessed. The fact that collection of tax had been stayed by some act of the taxpayer was the reason for the provision that a late collection should not be regarded as an overpayment.

It is stipulated and we have found as a fact that collection of the tax was stayed by the filing of the claim for abatement. The case, therefore, comes within the plain provisions of section 611 and the petition must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

Whaley, *Judge;*Williams, *Judge;*and Geeeh, Judge, concur.

Booth, *Chief*Justice, did not hear this case, on account of illness, and took no part in its decision.
#### § 121.580 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.

No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.

[Doc. No. FAA-1998-4954, 64 FR 1080, Jan. 7, 1999]
§ 125.283 Second-in-command qualifications. No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as second in command of an airplane unless that person— ( a ) Holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings, and an instrument rating; and
( b ) For flight under IFR, meets the recent instrument experience requirements prescribed for a pilot in command in part 61 of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 249
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 79 FR 61539, Oct. 10, 2014.

§ 249.109 Rules for consolidation. ( a ) *Consolidated subsidiary available stable funding amount.* For available stable funding of a legal entity that is a consolidated subsidiary of a Board-regulated institution, including a consolidated subsidiary organized under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction, the Board-regulated institution may include the available stable funding of the consolidated subsidiary in its ASF amount up to: ( 1 ) The RSF amount of the consolidated subsidiary, as calculated by the Board-regulated institution for the Board-regulated institution's net stable funding ratio under this part; plus
( 2 ) Any amount in excess of the RSF amount of the consolidated subsidiary, as calculated by the Board-regulated institution for the Board-regulated institution's net stable funding ratio under this part, to the extent the consolidated subsidiary may transfer assets to the top-tier Board-regulated institution, taking into account statutory, regulatory, contractual, or supervisory restrictions, such as sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371c and 12 U.S.C. 371c-1) and Regulation W (12 CFR part 223).
( b ) *Required consolidation procedures.* To the extent a Board-regulated institution includes an ASF amount in excess of the RSF amount of the consolidated subsidiary, the Board-regulated institution must implement and maintain written procedures to identify and monitor applicable statutory, regulatory, contractual, supervisory, or other restrictions on transferring assets from any of its consolidated subsidiaries. These procedures must document which types of transactions the Board-regulated institution could use to transfer assets from a consolidated subsidiary to the Board-regulated institution and how these types of transactions comply with applicable statutory, regulatory, contractual, supervisory, or other restrictions.
| (1)  | The      report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                            |
|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | The      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      registrant. |

| April      25, 2008                                |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                               |   |
|                                               |   |
| /s/      Jeffrey R. Immelt                         |   |
| Jeffrey      R. ImmeltChief      Executive Officer |   |
|                                     |   |
| /s/      Keith S. Sherin                           |   |
| Keith      S. SherinChief      Financial Officer   |   |
#### Ogle *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 22,194.

Filed December 12, 1912.]

1. Ceiminal Law.— Appeal.— Affidavit.— Sufficiency.— *Waiver of*Question.—Appellant waives the question of the sufficiency of the affidavit on which he is prosecuted, by failing to discuss it, or to present any point or authority in regard to it. p. 673.

2. *Appeal.—Review.—Sufficiency of*Evidence.—Briefs.■—Where appellant makes no attempt to comply with Rule 22 of the Supreme Court, with respect to the evidence, and the points and authorities in his brief are statements of abstract propositions as to questions of variance, the court will decline to search the record to find what the evidence was, or to what evidence, if any, the points and authorities refer, p. 673.

Prom Hamilton Circuit Court, *Meade Vestal,*Judge.

Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Calvin Ogle. Prom a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*Christian & Christian, for*appellant.

*Thomas M. Honan,*Attorney-General, *Thomas H. Branaman, Edwin Corr*and *James E. McCullough,*for the State.

*673Myers, J.

1. 2. Appellant was tried and convicted on a charge of petit larceny. He assigns as error, want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter, by reason of alleged failure to prove the venue, a question which could only arise on a motion for a new trial; error in overruling the motion to quash the affidavit, and in overruling his motion for a new trial. He has waived the question of the sufficiency of the affidavit, by failure to discuss it, or to present any point or authority in regard to it. He made no attempt to comply with Rule 22 of this court, with respect to the evidence. Aside from conclusions as to some matters, and one question, and the answer, as to matters not in issue, none of the evidence in any form is set out in any portion of the brief, and the points and authorities are statements of abstract propositions, as to questions of variance. To what they may-apply, or as to what the evidence was, cannot be ascertained from the brief, and we must, under such circumstances, decline to search the record to find what it was, or to what evidence, if any, the points and authorities refer.

The judgment is affirmed.

Note.—Reported in 100 N. E. 5. See, also, under (1) 12 Cyc. 886; (2) 12 Cyc. 877.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1003]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Notice of Availability

    The General Services Administration (GSA) has prepared a Record of 
Decision as the final document in the Environmental Impact Statement 
process for the renovation of the Tecate Port of Entry, Tecate, 
California. This project is designed to relocate the commercial 
operations, improve the working conditions for the U.S. Customs Service 
and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and improve the water 
systems on the port. For a copy of the Record of Decision contact: 
General Services Administration, 450 Golden Gate, Portfolio Division, 
San Francisco, California 94102, Attn: Rosanne Nieto, Phone: (415) 522-
3490.

Arlin M. Timberlake,
Director, Portfolio Division, Public Buildings Service, General 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-1003 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-BR-M
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0986. LEROY BANKS v. THE STATE.

In 2007, Leroy Banks was convicted of aggravated assault, possession of a

firearm during the commission of a felony, and criminal trespass. Since that time, he

has filed several post-conviction motions.1 On June 15, 2018, Banks filed an

extraordinary motion for new trial. That same day, he filed an “extraordinary motion

and urgent request for the immediate correction of the error/defect on the face of [his]

trial transcript.” The trial court denied both motions on July 3, 2018, and Banks then

filed the instant direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Banks previously filed an application for discretionary appeal from the trial

court’s July 3 orders denying his extraordinary motion for new trial and his

extraordinary motion for the correction of his trial transcript. We denied Banks’s

application on August 16, 2018, see Case No. A19D0040, and that denial constitutes

a decision on the merits. See Elrod v. Sunflower Meadows Dev., LLC, 322 Ga. App.

666, 670 (4) (745 SE2d 846) (2013) (“when this Court examines a request for a

discretionary appeal, it acts in an error-correcting mode such that a denial of the

application is on the merits”) (punctuation omitted). Accordingly, the doctrine of res

judicata bars this direct appeal from the same orders. See Northwest Social & Civic

Club v. Franklin, 276 Ga. 859, 860 (583 SE2d 858) (2003); Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga.

App. 258, 261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007).

1 See Case No. A19D0040 (denied Aug. 16, 2018); A18D0440 (denied May

17, 2018); A17D0434 (denied May 30, 2017); A17D0395 (dismissed May 11, 2017);

and A07D0382 (dismissed Aug. 15, 2007).

January 31, 2019
Banks’s appeal is therefore DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/31/2019
§ 792.58 Requests for correction or amendment to a record; administrative review of requests. ( a ) An individual may request amendment of a record concerning that individual by submitting a written request, either in person or by mail, to the system manager identified in the Notice of Systems of Records. The words “PRIVACY ACT—REQUEST TO AMEND RECORD” should be written on the letter and the envelope. The request must describe the system of records containing the record sought to be amended, indicate the particular record involved, the nature of the correction sought, and the justification for the correction or amendment. An individual who does not have access to NCUA's Notice of Systems of Records, and to whom the appropriate address is otherwise unavailable, may submit a request to the Privacy Act Officer, Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428, in which case the request will then be referred to the appropriate system manager. The date of receipt of the request will be determined as of the date of receipt by the system manager.
( b ) Within 10 working days of receipt of the request, the appropriate system manager shall advise the individual that the request has been received. The appropriate system manager will promptly (under normal circumstances, not later than 30 working days after receipt of the request) advise the individual that the record will be amended or corrected, or inform the individual of rejection of the request to amend the record, the reason for the rejection, and the procedures established by § 792.59 for the individual to request a review of that rejection.
[54 FR 18476, May 1, 1989, as amended at 59 FR 36041, 36042, July 15, 1994; 65 FR 63790, Oct. 25, 2000; 73 FR 56939, Oct. 1, 2008]
1 The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3156

___________ All American Semiconductor, Inc., * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., * [UNPUBLISHED] National Association, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 16, 2004 Filed: August 3, 2004

___________ Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., appeals from the district court’s 1 order granting All American Semiconductor, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, contending that the district court incorrectly applied the “strict compliance” standard for attempts to draw on letters of credit under Minnesota law and that the court should instead have granted summary judgment in its favor. We affirm.-2- We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Angelo Iafrate Constr., LLC v. Potashnick Constr., Inc. , 370 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We agree with the district court that All American is entitled to summary judgment if there is no question of fact that its documentary presentation “met Minnesota’s ‘strict compliance’ standard for letter of credit transactions.” D. Ct. Order of Jan. 3, 2003, at 3.
Having reviewed the record and briefs, we agree with the district court’s wellreasoned analysis in its orders of March 7, 2002, January 3, 2003 and July 21, 2003. Minnesota law requires that the issuer of a letter of credit honor a beneficiary’s draft presentation if it “appears on its face strictly to comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit,” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 336.5-108(a) (2002), adopting the UCC concept of strict compliance not as absolute perfectionism, but as complying with standard practice for issuers. See Minn. Stat. Ann. § 336.5-108, cmt. 1 (2003) (incorporating the U.C.C. comment); Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China , 167 F.Supp. 2d 940, 947 (S.D. Tex. 2000) (interpreting language virtually identical to that of Minnesota law and using a common sense, case-by-case approach to strict compliance to hold that minor deviations that do not bring into question the obvious link between the documents presented as a whole do not justify dishonor by the issuer), aff’d on other grounds , 288 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2002). All American’s draw presentation met that standard because its documentary presentation, when viewed as a whole, complied with the requirements in the letter of credit, and the minor discrepancies claimed by Wells Fargo did not justify rejection of the draw.
The judgment is affirmed. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 99.15





CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON








Golden Star Resources Ltd.


United States Securities and Exchange Commission





Re: Golden Star Resources Ltd.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





I hereby consent to (i) being named and identified as a "qualified person" and the use of my name in connection with the following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Form 40-F”) of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (the “Company”) to which this consent relates: (A) the technical report entitled "43-101 Technical Report on a Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Wassa open pit and underground project in Ghana" effective date October 30, 2014 and filed on October 22, 2014, (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2014 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2014, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from such documents in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-175542, 333-169047, 333-118958, 333-105821 and 333-105820), as amended, and Registration Statement No. 333-196906 on Form F-10, as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.








/s/ Chris Bray_________________________


Chris Bray





March 31, 2015
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 15, 2000. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034: 

1. Marion Edwin Lowery, Franklin, Tennessee; to acquire voting shares of Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Brownsville, Tennessee, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Bank of Commerce, Trenton, Tennessee. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 25, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00-10702 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### § 792.20 What are the charges for each fee category?

The fee category definitions are:

(a) *Commercial use request* means a request from or on behalf of one who seeks information for a use or purpose that furthers the commercial, trade, or profit interests of the requester or the person on whose behalf the request is made.

(b) *Educational institution* means a preschool, an elementary or secondary school, an institution of undergraduate higher education, an institution of graduate higher education, an institution of professional education, and an institution of vocational education operating a program or programs of scholarly research.

(c) *Noncommercial scientific institution* means an institution that is not operated for a “commercial” purpose as that term is used in [paragraph (a)](/on/2024-09-19/title-12/section-792.20#p-792.20(a)) of this section and is operated solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research, the results of which are not intended to promote any particular product or industry.

(d) *Representative of the news media* means any person actively gathering news for an entity that is organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public. Included within the meaning of public is the credit union community. The term news means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. You may consult the following chart to find the fees applicable to your request:

| If your fee category is | You'll receive | And you'll be charged |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Commercial use | 0 hours free search | search time |
| | 0 hours free review | review time |
| | 0 free pages | duplication |
| Educational institution, noncommercial scientific institution, newsmedia | Unlimited free search hours Unlimited free review hours 100 free pages | duplication |
| All others | 2 hours free search | search time |
| | Unlimited free review hours | |
| | 100 free pages | duplication |