alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0411 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CATHIE WARREN a/k/a CATHIE ODEGAARD,

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 October 28, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

September 21 2022

09/21/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0411
#### § 1912.7 Reports.

The Assistant Secretary shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, for the Department of Labor's Committee Management Officer reports describing the committee's membership, functions, and actions as may be necessary for the performance of the duties of the Committee Management officer.
#### § 1640.13 Agency specific memoranda of understanding.

When a section 504 agency amends its regulations to make them consistent with title I of the ADA, the EEOC and the individual section 504 agency may elect to enter into a memorandum of understanding providing for the investigation and processing of complaints dual filed under both section 504 and title I of the ADA by the section 504 agency.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darryl Lynch, Also Known as Mark Wright, Appellant.

[698 *874NYS2d 208]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [NV-930-1430-ET; Nev-059798] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Public land order.

# SUMMARY:

This order partially revokes a public land order insofar as it affects 700.12 acres of public land withdrawn for use by the Bureau of Reclamation for the Robert B. Griffith Water Project. The land is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was withdrawn and the revocation is needed to facilitate a pending land exchange. The land will remain closed to location and entry under the mining laws, and from operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws in accordance with Section 4(c) of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 12, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis J. Samuelson, BLM Nevada State Office, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520, 775-861-6532. 

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows: 

1. Public Land Order No. 3512, which withdrew public land for the Bureau of Reclamation's Robert B. Griffith Project, is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described land:

## Mount Diablo Meridian 

T. 21 S., R. 63 E., 

Sec. 26, lots 1, 6 to 13, inclusive, 16, 18 to 21, inclusive, and 23; 

                            Sec. 27, SE                            1/4                            ;                         

Sec. 34, lots 8, 10 to 13, inclusive, 15, 17, 24, and 26. 

Sec. 35, lot 11. 

The area described contains 700.12 acres in Clark County.

                        2. The land described in paragraph 1 is hereby made available for disposal in accordance with Section 4 of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Public Law 105-263, 112 Stat. 2343,                         *et seq.*

Dated: April 28, 2000. 

Sylvia V. Baca, 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior. 

[FR Doc. 00-11850 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6352

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ROBERTO MENDOZA, a/k/a Monkey , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:14

- cr - 00164

- RJC

- 1; 3:16

- cv 00815

- RJC )

Submitted : June 20, 2017 Decided: June 23, 2017

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Roberto Mendoza, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roberto Mendoza seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisf ies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (20 03). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S . at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mendoza has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 31599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13509]

[[Page 31599]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 
public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Barkley Centre, 111 Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reinhard Knerr, Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office 
Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441-6825.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

     Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda.
     Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments.
     Federal Coordinator's Comments.
     Liaisons' Comments.
     Administrative Issues:
     [cir] Review Work Plan,
     [cir] Recognize Departing Board Members.
     Subcommittee Chairs' Comments.
     Public Comments.
     Final Comments.
     Adjourn.

Breaks Taken As Appropriate

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Paducah, welcomes the attendance 
of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every 
effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special 
needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, 
please contact Reinhard Knerr as soon as possible in advance of the 
meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be 
filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals 
who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should 
contact Reinhard Knerr at the telephone number listed above. Requests 
must be received as soon as possible prior to the meeting and 
reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the 
agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct 
the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided 
a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Reinhard 
Knerr at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also 
be available at the following Web site: http://www.pgdpcab.energy.gov/2011Meetings.html.

    Issued at Washington, DC on May 24, 2011.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-13509 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
§ 420.61 Records. ( a ) A licensee shall maintain all records, data, and other material needed to verify that its operations are conducted in accordance with representations contained in the licensee's application. A licensee shall retain records for three years.
( b ) For any event that meets any of paragraph (1), (5), or (8) of the definition of “mishap” in § 401.7 of this chapter, a licensee must preserve all records related to the event. Records must be retained until completion of any Federal investigation and the FAA advises the licensee that the records need not be retained.
( c ) A licensee shall make available to federal officials for inspection and copying all records required to be maintained under the regulations.
[Docket No. FAA-1999-5833, 65 FR 62861, Oct. 19, 2000, as amended by Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 420-9, 85 FR 79717, Dec. 10, 2020]
§ 35.35 Centrifugal load tests. The applicant must demonstrate that a propeller complies with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section without evidence of failure, malfunction, or permanent deformation that would result in a major or hazardous propeller effect. When the propeller could be sensitive to environmental degradation in service, this must be considered. This section does not apply to fixed-pitch wood or fixed-pitch metal propellers of conventional design. ( a ) The hub, blade retention system, and counterweights must be tested for a period of one hour to a load equivalent to twice the maximum centrifugal load to which the propeller would be subjected during operation at the maximum rated rotational speed.
( b ) Blade features associated with transitions to the retention system (for example, a composite blade bonded to a metallic retention) must be tested either during the test of paragraph (a) of this section or in a separate component test for a period of one hour to a load equivalent to twice the maximum centrifugal load to which the propeller would be subjected during operation at the maximum rated rotational speed.
( c ) Components used with or attached to the propeller (for example, spinners, de-icing equipment, and blade erosion shields) must be subjected to a load equivalent to 159 percent of the maximum centrifugal load to which the component would be subjected during operation at the maximum rated rotational speed. This must be performed by either: ( 1 ) Testing at the required load for a period of 30 minutes; or
( 2 ) Analysis based on test.
[Amdt. 35-8, 73 FR 63348, Oct. 24, 2008]
§ 1915.32 Toxic cleaning solvents. ( a ) When toxic solvents are used, the employer shall employ one or more of the following measures to safeguard the health of employees exposed to these solvents. ( 1 ) The cleaning operation shall be completely enclosed to prevent the escape of vapor into the working space.
( 2 ) Either natural ventilation or mechanical exhaust ventilation shall be used to remove the vapor at the source and to dilute the concentration of vapors in the working space to a concentration which is safe for the entire work period.
( 3 ) Employees shall be protected against toxic vapors by suitable respiratory protective equipment in accordance with the requirements of subpart I of this part and, where necessary, against exposure of skin and eye contact with toxic solvents and their vapors by suitable clothing and equipment.
( b ) The principles in the threshold limit values to which attention is directed in § 1915.4 will be used by the Department of Labor in enforcement proceedings in defining a safe concentration of air contaminants.
( c ) When flammable solvents are used, precautions shall be taken in accordance with the requirements of § 1915.36.
[47 FR 16986, Apr. 20, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 26351, May 24, 1996]
#### Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company, Respondent, *v.*National Surety Corporation, Appellant.

Argued May 18, 1937;

decided June 1, 1937.

*580
      *Samuel R. Feller, Benjamin Levin*and *Leo H. Hirsch, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Francis D. Higson*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran, Pinch and Rippey, JJ.
§ 450.41 Policy review and approval. ( a ) *General.* The FAA issues a policy approval to an applicant unless the FAA determines that a proposed launch or reentry would jeopardize U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, or international obligations of the United States.
( b ) *Interagency consultation.* ( 1 ) The FAA consults with the Department of Defense to determine whether a license application presents any issues affecting U.S. national security.
( 2 ) The FAA consults with the Department of State to determine whether a license application presents any issues affecting U.S. foreign policy interests or international obligations.
( 3 ) The FAA consults with other Federal agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, authorized to address issues identified under paragraph (a) of this section, associated with an applicant's proposal.
( c ) *Issues during policy review.* The FAA will advise an applicant, in writing, of any issue raised during a policy review that would impede issuance of a policy approval. The applicant may respond, in writing, or amend its license application as required by § 413.17 of this chapter.
( d ) *Denial of policy approval.* The FAA notifies an applicant, in writing, if it has denied policy approval for a license application. The notice states the reasons for the FAA's determination. The applicant may seek further review of the determination in accordance with § 413.21 of this chapter.
( e ) *Application requirements for policy review.* In its license application, an applicant must— ( 1 ) Identify the model, type, and configuration of any vehicle proposed for launch or reentry by the applicant;
( 2 ) Describe the vehicle by characteristics that include individual stages, their dimensions, type and amounts of all propellants, and maximum thrust;
( 3 ) Identify foreign ownership of the applicant as follows: ( i ) For a sole proprietorship or partnership, identify all foreign ownership;
( ii ) For a corporation, identify any foreign ownership interests of 10 percent or more; and
( iii ) For a joint venture, association, or other entity, identify any participating foreign entities; and
( 4 ) Identify the proposed vehicle flight profile, including: ( i ) Launch or reentry site, including any contingency abort locations;
( ii ) Flight azimuths, trajectories, and associated ground tracks and instantaneous impact points for the duration of the licensed activity, including any contingency abort profiles;
( iii ) Sequence of planned events or maneuvers during flight;
( iv ) Normal impact or landing areas for all mission hardware; and
( v ) For each orbital mission, the range of intermediate and final orbits of each vehicle upper stage and their estimated orbital lifetimes.
#### MILLER v PRIOIETTI

Ohio Appeals, 5th Dist, Stark Co

No. 1018.

Decided October 17, 1929

Messrs. Ake, Van Nostrand & Graham, Canton, for Miller.

Messrs. Contie & Cohen, Canton, for Prioietti.

HOUCK. J.

It is urged under this state of the record that there is such prejudicial error therein as to authorize a reviewing Court to reverse the judgment below and grant a new trial. The record clearly discloses that the question in which it is claimed the real sting exists was withdrawn by counsel.

> “Refusal of the Court to withdraw a juror and decree a new trial after it had been brought out that defendant carried liability insurance was not error, since such action is within the discretion of the trial Court and will not be interfered with in the absence of abuse.”

> Gibbs v Bartom, 130 Atlantic Reporter 439.

> Knutzen Motor Co. v. Steiner, 31 Ohio Appellate 46

> (166 Northeastern Reporter, page 243).

> Cohen v. Smith, 26 Ohio Appellate Reports 32.

We think that the case of Pavilonis v. Valentine, 120 OS. 154 (165 Northeastern, p. 731) is clearly in point and decisive of this suit in favor of the defendant in error and against the plaintiff in error.

How can it properly be as_serted in the case now under review that prejudicial error has intervened when, as a matter of fact, no answer was given to the question and the jury did not know whether .the answer would be yes or no, and as a result had no knowledge as to whether the defendant below carried indemnity insurance or not. What more could the Trial Judge dp than he did in the premises? Or what more could counsel for plaintiff below do than he did in order to prevent any semblance of error? ‘ He withdrew the question and the case stood just *729as it did prior to that time. A reviewing Court under the facts before it has no right to draw an inference that the plaintiff in error has been prejudiced. In order for there to be prejudicial error warranting a reversal of a judgment, the record must affirmatively show that the rights of the complaining party have been prejudiced and that justice has been miscarried. Not so in the case before us.

It follows that the judgment of the Common Pleas Court should be affirmed.

Lemert, J. and Sherick, J. concur.
November 17, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

COLIN M. DEMPSEY , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00634

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**DERRICK ROBINSON,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 637 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 6th day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
EXHIBIT 31.3



MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION



I, Brian J. Driscoll, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Snyder’s-Lance,
Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 19, 2018



|/s/ Brian J. Driscoll                 | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|Brian J. Driscoll                     | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer |
#### § 1601.1 Purpose.

The regulations set forth in this part contain the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for carrying out its responsibilities in the administration and enforcement of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 207 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and section 104 of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act incorporate the powers, remedies and procedures set forth in sections 705, 706, 707, 709 and 710 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Based on its experience in the enforcement of title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and upon its evaluation of suggestions and petitions for amendments submitted by interested persons, the Commission may from time to time amend and revise these procedures.

[89 FR 11169, Feb. 14, 2024]