alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANA OP 22-0039 TRENT LELL,

Petitioner, v. JAMES SALMONSEN,

Respondent. ORDER

Trent Lell seeks relieffrom his persistent felony offender (PFO) sentence through a petition he has entitled, "Petition for Equal Protection of the Law." Lell premises his argument on an order this Court issued in another case, stating, "IfGodfrey in OP 13-0258 was entitled to have his original 10 year PFO term increased to a 60 year PFO term then I, Trentlien, am also entitledtohave my original 15 year PFQ sentence increasedto a 90 year PFO term." He cites to caselaw holding that equal protection ofthe law must be afforded to individuals who are similarly situated. Although Lell's seeming request for a longer sentence is confusing, we construe his petition as one for a writ ofhabeas corpus. Montana's statute for habeas corpus reliefprovides that a court may inquire into the cause of restraint or incarceration to determine its legality. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. This Court has held that "an individual incarcerated pursuant to a facially invalid sentence—for example, a sentence which either exceeds the statutory maximum for the crime charged or which violates the constitutional right to be free from doublejeopardy— [has]the ability to challenge its legality." Lott v. State, 2006 MT 279, ¶22, 334 Mont. 270, 150 P.3d 337. We granted habeas relief in Godfrey and remanded for resentencing to correct the court's erroneous imposition of a consecutive PFO sentence, relying on our prior determination that Islentences imposed based on an offender's status as a persistent felony offender replace the sentence for the underlying felony." Godfrey v. Kirkegard, 02/08/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0039

### OP 13-0258 (Or. July 7, 2013) (quoting State v. Gunderson, 2010 MT 166, ¶ 54,

357 Mont. 142, 237 P.3d 74). Le11, however, offers no factual basis for his sparse argument. Le11 has not included a copy ofthejudgrnent he challenges or provided any information about his conviction and sentence. As such, he cannot meet his burden On habeas corpus to demonstrate a facially invalid sentence. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lell's Petition for Equal Protection ofthe Law is DENIED and DISMISSED. TheClerk ofthe SupremeCourt is directedto provide a copy ofthisOrder to counsel ofrecord and to Trent Lell personally. DATED this 3 day ofFebruary, 2022.
ChiefJustice

Justices
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4286 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4286

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs to provide a case suitable for displaying the flag 
              furnished with respect to deceased veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 1994

Mr. Montgomery introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs to provide a case suitable for displaying the flag 
              furnished with respect to deceased veterans.

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

SECTION 1. CASE SUITABLE FOR DISPLAYING FLAG FURNISHED WITH RESPECT TO 
              DECEASED VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 2301 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Upon request of the person to whom the Secretary gives a flag 
under this section, the Secretary shall give a case suitable for 
displaying the flag when folded in a triangular shape.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to deaths occurring on or after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
# Comments on: 19-111: IN RE: THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. [MOTION PANEL ORDER], Nonprecedential
#### § 0.481 Place of filing applications for radio authorizations.

For locations for filing applications, and appropriate fees, see §§ 1.1102 through 1.1107 of this chapter.

[69 FR 41130, July 7, 2004]
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

UNDER SEAL (NON PUBLIC ORDER)

__________________________ 

IN RE COMPLAINT NO. 23-90015

__________________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

ORDER 

On July 31, 2023, the Committee issued its Report and 

Recommendation (R&R) to the Judicial Council finding 

that Judge Newman had engaged in misconduct for failing 

to cooperate with the Committee’s May 16 Order and thus 

thwarting the ability of the Committee to reach a conclusion regarding whether Judge Newman is able to continue 

to perform the duties of her job. On August 31, 2023, Judge 

Newman filed her response to the R&R under Rule 20(a). 

The Response was accompanied by three exhibits. On September 13, 2023, Judge Newman submitted a letter requesting the public release of her Response under Rule 

23(b)(7). This Order responds to that letter, clarifying the

outstanding tasks that must be completed for the public release of the Response.

The Clerk of Court responded to Judge Newman’s request for release of the Response the same day he received 

the September 13 letter. In that response, the Clerk of 

Court instructed Judge Newman’s counsel to submit Judge 

Newman’s proposed redactions to the Response and
Exhibit 32.2





Section 1350


CERTIFICATION








The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended June 28, 2009 as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
(2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.








Signed August 6, 2009.








/s/ Harry V. MaccarroneHarry V. MaccarroneExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-11125.

#### Brown *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit








FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
GRAPHIC PACKAGING HOLDING COMPANY
2014 OMNIBUS STOCK AND INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN




THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the Graphic Packaging Holding Company 2014 Omnibus Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan (the “ 2014 Plan”), is effective as of January 1, 2017.


The Compensation and Benefits Committee of the Board of Directors of Graphic Packaging Holding Company (the “Company”) has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the 2014 Plan to provide that the Company may satisfy any tax withholding requirements relating to equity awards granted under the 2014 Plan by withholding from such awards shares of common stock having a fair market value equal to the maximum individual statutory rate.


1.    The 2014 Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 20.2 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


“20.2  Share Withholding. With respect to withholding required upon the exercise of Options or SARs, upon the lapse of restrictions on Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units, or upon the achievement of performance goals related to Performance Shares, or any other taxable event arising as a result of an Award granted hereunder, unless otherwise determined by the Committee at the time the Award is granted or thereafter, the Company may satisfy the tax withholding requirement, in whole or in part, by withholding Shares having a Fair Market Value on the date the tax is to be determined equal to the amount required to be withheld in accordance with applicable tax requirements (up to the maximum individual statutory rate in the applicable jurisdiction as may be permitted under then-current accounting principles to qualify for equity classification).”


2.    The 2014 Plan is hereby amended by deleting third sentence of Section 4.2 and replacing it with the following:


“Moreover, if the Exercise Price of any Option granted under the Plan or the tax withholding requirements with respect to an Award granted under the Plan (other than with respect to a grant of Restricted Stock or other Award pursuant to which Shares are actually issued to the Participant on the grant date) are satisfied through a net settlement or by tendering Shares to the Company (by either actual delivery or by attestation), or if a SAR is exercised, only the number of Shares issued, net of the Shares withheld or tendered, if any, will be deemed delivered for purposes of determining the maximum number of Shares available for issuance under the Plan.”


3.    Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms of the 2014 Plan shall be and remain unchanged and the 2014 Plan as amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative.




GRAPHIC PACKAGING HOLDING COMPANY


By:     /s/ Carla J. Chaney            
Carla J. Chaney
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-1912) pertaining to the Second Amended and Restated 1994 Stock 
Option Plan of TresCom International, Inc. of our reports dated February 27,
1998 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
TresCom International, Inc. in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of TresCom
International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 18, 1998
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.14 Citation of Commission documents.

The appropriate reference to the FCC Record shall be included as part of the citation to any document that has been printed in the Record. The citation should provide the volume, page number and year, in that order (e.g., 1 FCC Rcd. 1 (1986). Older documents may continue to be cited to the FCC Reports, first or second series, if they were printed in the Reports (e.g., 1 FCC 2d 1 (1965)).

[51 FR 45890, Dec. 23, 1986]
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00441

- CR

IN RE NELSON PARNELL , JR.

Original Proceeding

ORDER

Nelson Parnell, Jr.’s “Motion for Order of Relief Sought: TRAP 10.1(a) 1,2,3,4”

filed on February 6, 2017 is denied . The State filed a motion for extension of time to file

its response in this matter . The Court granted the State’s motion, and t he State’s response

is now due February 15, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed February 15 , 2017
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that
this  Annual  Report  on Form  10-KSB  for the year  ended  June 30,  2003  (the
"Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.



                          By:/s/ Joseph J. Bouffard
                             --------------------------------------------
                             Name:    Joseph J. Bouffard
                             Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer



                          By:/s/ Michael J. Dee
                             --------------------------------------------
                             Name:    Michael J. Dee
                             Title:   Senior-Vice President
                                      Chief Financial Officer


Date: September 17, 2003
§ 51-9.401 Submission of requests to amend records. ( a ) An individual who desires to amend any record or information pertaining to him should direct a written request to the Executive Director, Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
( b ) A request should bear the legend “Privacy Act—Request to Amend Record” prominently marked on both the face of the request letter and the envelope.
(5 U.S.C. 552a)
[40 FR 51168, Nov. 3, 1975. Redesignated at 56 FR 48983, Sept. 26, 1991, and amended at 59 FR 16777, Apr. 8, 1994; 63 FR 16440, Apr. 3, 1998: 65 FR 35287, June 2, 2000]
§ 51-6.12 Specification changes and similar actions. ( a ) Contracting activities shall notify the nonprofit agency or agencies authorized to furnish a commodity on the Procurement List and the central nonprofit agency concerned of any changes to the specification or other description of the commodity.
( b ) When a Government entity is changing the specification or description of a commodity on the Procurement List, including a change that involves the assignment of a new national stock number or item designation, the office assigned responsibility for the action shall obtain the comments of the Committee and the central nonprofit agency concerned on the proposed change and shall notify the nonprofit agency and the central nonprofit agency concerned at least 90 days prior to placing an order for a commodity covered by the new specification or description.
( c ) For services on the Procurement List, the contracting activity shall notify the nonprofit agency furnishing the service and the central nonprofit agency concerned at least 90 days prior to the date that any changes in the statement of work or other conditions of performance will be required, including assumption of performance of the service by the contracting activity.
( d ) If an emergency makes it impossible for a contracting activity to give the 90-day notice required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the contracting activity shall inform the nonprofit agency and the central nonprofit agency concerned of the reasons it cannot meet the 90-day notice requirement when it places the order or change notice.
( e ) Nonprofit agencies shall recommend changes in specifications, item descriptions, and statements of work that will improve the commodity or service being provided, reduce costs, or improve overall value to the Government. Contracting activities shall respond promptly to these recommendations and work with the nonprofit agencies to implement them when appropriate.
[56 FR 48983, Sept. 26, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 59344, Nov. 16, 1994; 62 FR 66529, Dec. 19, 1998]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.59 Withdrawal or narrowing of petitions for forbearance. ( a ) A petitioner may withdraw or narrow a petition for forbearance without approval of the Commission by filing a notice of full or partial withdrawal at any time prior to the end of the tenth business day after the due date for reply comments announced in the public notice.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, a petition for forbearance may be withdrawn, or narrowed so significantly as to amount to a withdrawal of a large portion of the forbearance relief originally requested by the petitioner, only with approval of the Commission.
[74 FR 39227, Aug. 6, 2009]
# Comments on: 23-111: In Re ZHEJIANG CRYSTAL-OPTECH CO. LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential
dvn-ex1031_1990.htm



Exhibit 10.31

Amendment 2016-1

to the

devon energy corporation

incentive savings plan

The Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan (the "Plan") is amended, effective January 14, 2016, as follows:

1.A new Paragraph (3) is added to Section 4.01(a) of the Plan ("Elections"), immediately after Paragraph (2) and immediately before the current Paragraph (3), and subsequent sections and cross-references are amended accordingly, such new Paragraph to read as follows:

"(3)Each Eligible Employee as of November 15, 2015 who (A) is determined by the Committee or its delegate, in accordance with uniform and nondiscriminatory procedures, to have elected to contribute to the Plan as Salary Deferrals and/or Roth Contributions a percentage of Compensation attributable to the annual discretionary performance bonus that is less than the maximum percentage of Matching Contributions for which the Eligible Employee is eligible under Section 4.05(a) and (B) does not otherwise make an affirmative election to the contrary, shall be deemed to have made an election, effective January 14, 2016, to increase the reduction in his or her Compensation attributable to his annual discretionary performance bonus by such amount as the Committee or its delegate determines in accordance with uniform and nondiscriminatory procedures is necessary for the Eligible Employee to receive the maximum Matching Contribution for which the Eligible Employee would be eligible under Section 4.05(a) and to contribute such amount to the Plan as Salary Deferrals (or as Roth 401(k) Contributions if the Eligible Employee has an election in effect as of November 15, 2015 to designate 100% of his Salary Deferrals as Roth 401(k) Contributions); provided, however, that if the Committee or its delegate determines in accordance with uniform and nondiscriminatory procedures that the Eligible Employee is expected to reach the limit described under Section 5.01(a) before December 31, 2016, the Eligible Employee shall not be deemed to have made an election to change his contribution percentages under this Paragraph."

[remainder of page intentionally blank]

 

1



DB1/ 85572015.4

 

 

 
 


 

In witness whereof, Devon Energy Corporation (acting through its authorized delegate) has caused this Amendment 2016-1 to the Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan to be executed this 5th day of January, 2016.

DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION

 

By: _/s/ Frank W. Rudolph__________________

Name:  Frank W. Rudolph

Title:  Executive Vice President, Human Resources

[Signature Page to Amendment 2016-1 

to the Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan]



DB1/ 85572015.4
Argued and submitted November 14,

affirmed December 14, 1994

#### CITY OF PORTLAND, *Respondent, v.*CITY OF BEAVERTON, *Petitioner, and*WASHINGTON COUNTY, Beaverton School District No. 48J, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District and Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, *Intervenors-Respondents below.*CITY OF PORTLAND, *Respondent, v.*WASHINGTON COUNTY, *Petitioner, and*CITY OF BEAVERTON, *Intervenor-Petitioner.*

(LUBA No. 92-225; CA A84260 (Control)) (LUBA No. 93-195; CA A84261)

886 P2d 1084

*631Mark Pilliod, City Attorney, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner City of Beaverton.

David C. Noren, Assistant County Counsel, argued the cause for petitioner Washington County. With him on the brief was John M. Junkin, County Counsel.

Peter A. Easting, Senior Deputy City Attorney, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Larry Shaw filed the brief *amicus curiae*for Metro.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Haselton, Judges.

DEITS, P. J.

*633DEITS, P. J.

In these consolidated cases, LUBA remanded comprehensive plan amendments by the City of Beaverton and Washington County, respectively. The amendments purported to establish an urban service boundary (USB) that included certain unincorporated territory in the county within the area that would ultimately be annexed by and receive services from Beaverton, rather than the City of Portland.1 Before the amendments, the acknowledged plans of all three jurisdictions contained provisions that were to the essential effect that both cities had potential interests in eventually acquiring and servicing the area, but no determinative course had been elected by any of the jurisdictions or agreed to by the three together.

LUBA held that the amendments to the county’s and Beaverton’s plans placed them in conflict with the Portland plan in its unamended form, that the two jurisdictions could not “unilaterally alter the acknowledged land use planning status quo,” and that their doing so violated Goal 2. LUBA further concluded that, under *former*ORS 197.190(1), *see*ORS 195.025, and applicable provisions of ORS chapter 268, the coordination and the resolution of any conflicts among the planning jurisdictions are within the exclusive authority of the Metropolitan Service District.2

Beaverton and the county seek review. On the principal points in LUBA’s opinion, which we have described above, we agree completely with LUBA’s analysis and conclusions. We also agree with LUBA’s disposition of the other issues the parties raise, and believe that no purpose would be served by restating LUBA’s discussion.

Affirmed.

1

 Portland adopted a comprehensive plan amendment which, apparently, was to the exact opposite effect. LUBA also remanded that amendment. That decision is not before us in this proceeding.

2

 The challenged decisions were made while the former statute cited in the text was in effect. We express no view on the effects that ORS 195.025 or any other 1993 legislation may have on the issues on remand.
The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) 

HEALTH INSURANCE
 

New FEHB Enrollment Type: Self Plus One. For more information visit www.opm.gov/selfplusone 

Unexpected accidents and illnesses can be expensive. Even routine doctor visits and prescriptions can add up. With 

FEHB, you can get comprehensive health insurance coverage for you, your spouse, and your 

children under age 26. 

There are no waiting periods and no restrictions on pre-existing conditions. No matter where you live, you have 11 or 

more health plans to choose from, each covering: 

• Routine physical exams 

• Doctor’s office visits 

• Specialist visits 

• Lab tests 

• Prescriptions 

• Ambulance services 

• Inpatient hospital care 

• Surgery 

• X -rays 

• Maternity care 

• Urgent care 

• Mental health services 

• Stop smoking aids 

• Physical therapy 

• And more 

Who can enroll? 

Most Federal employees 

are eligible 

Annuitants may be 

eligible to continue their 

FEHB coverage into 

retirement if they meet 

certain requirements 

Check with your human 

resources office if you are 

unsure 

Online tools can help you select the right plan for your family: 

Use the plan comparison tools at www.opm.gov/FEHBcompare 

Complete cost and coverage information for each plan available at www.opm.gov/health 

When can I enroll? 

During your first 60 days 

as a newly eligible 

employee; or 

During the Federal 

Benefits Open Season 

(mid-November to 

mid-December); or 

When you have a 

qualifying life event 

such as marriage, divorce, 

or birth 

How much does it 

cost? 

It depends on what plan 

you select 

Each pay period, you pay 

about 30% of the premium and your agency pays 

about 70% 

Generally you also pay 

part of the cost for any 

service you receive 

How do I enroll? 

Use your agency electronic 

enrollment system, or 

visit www.opm.gov/forms 

and submit form 

SF 2809 to your human 

resources office 

Annuitants not currently 

enrolled in FEHB cannot 

enroll after retirement 

MORE INFO: www.opm.gov/health 

For complete information, including terms and conditions, please review each plan’s brochure. 

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT