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

OP 22-0039 

TRENT LELL, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JAMES SALMONSEN, 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

Trent Lell seeks relief from 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, "If Godfrey in OP 13-0258 

was entitled to have his original 10 year PFO term increased to a 60 year PFO term then I, 

Trent lien, am also entitled to have my original 15 year PFQ sentence increased to a 90 year 

PFO term." He cites to caselaw holding that equal protection of the 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 of habeas corpus. 

Montana's statute for habeas corpus relief provides 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 double jeopardy—

[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 of the judgrnent 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 of the Law 

is DENIED and DISMISSED. 

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel 

of record and to Trent Lell personally. 

DATED this 3 day of February, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

Justices
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16390]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[OMB Control No. 2900-0180]


Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 
(44 U.S.C., 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Veterans 
Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has 
submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA 
submission describes the nature of the information collection and its 
expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection 
instrument.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY OF THE SUBMISSION CONTACT: Denise 
McLamb, Information Management Service (045A4), Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030 
or FAX (202) 273-5981. Please refer to ``OMB'' Control No. 2900-0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Compliance Report of Proprietary Institutions, VA Form 27-
4274.
    OMB Control Number: 2900-0180.
    Type of Review: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously 
approved collection for which approval has expired.
    Abstract: VA Form 27-4274 is used to determine whether or not 
proprietary educational institutions receiving Federal financial 
assistance are in compliance with applicable civil rights statute and 
regulations. The collected information is used to identify areas that 
may indicate, statistically, disparate treatment of minority group 
members.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The Federal Register Notice with a 
60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of 
information was published on April 11, 2000, at pages 19434-19435.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 124 hours.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 60 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 124.
    Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the 
information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Allison Eydt, OMB 
Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 
10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-4650. Please refer to ``OMB 
Control No. 2900-0180'' in any correspondence.

    Dated: June 14, 2000.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Sandra McIntyre,
 Management Analyst, Information Management Service.
[FR Doc. 00-16390 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
No. 4 February 2, 2017 807

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF OREGON

John B. WELS, Jr.,

Respondent on Review,

v.

Douglas W. HIPPE,

Defendant,

and

Le Roy HIPPE

and Cheryl Hippe,

Petitioners on Review.

(CC 101215E3; CA A150238; SC S063486)

On petition for reconsideration filed by petitioners on 

review December 5, 2016; considered and under advisement 

January 4, 2017.*

Clayton C. Patrick, Clatskanie, filed the petition for 

reconsideration for petitioners on review.

No appearance contra.

Before, Balmer, Chief Justice, and Kistler, Walters, 

Landau, Baldwin, and Brewer, Justices, and DeHoog, Judge 

of the Court of Appeals, Justice pro tempore.**

LANDAU, J.

The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former 

opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.

Case Summary: In a claim for a prescriptive easement, the Supreme Court 

originally remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. Held: 

the opinion of the Supreme Court is modified to remand the case to the circuit 

court for entry of judgment in defendants’ favor. The original opinion is adhered 

to as modified.

The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified 

and adhered to as modified.

______________

** 360 Or 569, ____ P3d ____ (2016); 269 Or App 785, 347 P3d 788 (2015).

** Nakamoto, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

case.
808 Wels v. Hippe

LANDAU, J.

Defendants have petitioned for reconsideration of 

our opinion in Wels v. Hippe, 360 Or 569, ___ P3d ___ (2016). 

Defendants prevailed but seek clarification of our instruction remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Defendants assert that this instruction requires 

the trial court to vacate its original judgment in favor of 

plaintiff and enter judgment in favor of defendants, rather 

than holding a new trial and allowing plaintiff to present 

further evidence. We agree that clarification is warranted as 

follows: The case is remanded to the circuit court for entry 

of judgment in defendants’ favor, and the award of costs is 

modified accordingly.

The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.
46839.

#### FIELDS v. RAINBOW INTERNATIONAL CARPET DYEING & CLEANING COMPANY.

(380 SE2d 693)

Weltner, Justice.

Fields entered into an agreement with Rainbow International Carpet Dyeing and Cleaning Co. in which he was granted a license to operate a franchise of Rainbow’s business in Bibb County. The contract contained an agreement not to compete, which provided:

> . . for three (3) years after the termination hereof, [Fields] will not, without the prior written consent of [Rainbow], either directly or indirectly, as principal, agent, servant or otherwise, carry on or engage in the business of carpet and up*376holstery cleaning and dyeing within the above-described area [Bibb County] or directly or indirectly solicit, or endeavor to obtain the carpet and upholstery cleaning and dyeing business or any person or corporation who shall have been, during the term of this Agreement and any extension thereof, a customer of Licensee, other than for the benefit of Licensor and Licensee as provided in this Agreement.”

Decided June 29, 1989

Reconsideration denied July 26, 1989.

*Harrison & Willis, Randall P. Harrison,*for appellant.

*Anderson, Walker & Reichert, R. William Buzzell II, Loretta L. Pinkston,*for appellee.

Rainbow terminated Fields’ franchise license, and filed suit to enforce its terms. The trial court granted Rainbow’s motion to restrain Fields temporarily from operating directly or indirectly a carpet and upholstery cleaning and dyeing business in Bibb County. We granted Fields’ application for interlocutory review. *

The agreement prohibits Fields, who was owner and manager of Rainbow’s franchise, from working for a competitor in any capacity — “either directly or indirectly, as principal, agent, servant or otherwise.” “We have held that a restriction of employment in a business ‘in any capacity’ is overbroad and unreasonable.” *Watson v. Waffle House, Inc.,*253 Ga. 671, 673 (324 SE2d 175) (1985). See also *Wilson v. Center Brothers, Inc.,*250 Ga. 156 (296 SE2d 589) (1982). Because the agreement is overbroad, it is unenforceable.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Marshall, C. J., who dissents.*
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 126 (Thursday, June 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16427]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Rhode Island Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Rhode Island Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 9 
a.m. and adjourn at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, July 21, 2000, at the Rhode 
Island State House, Providence, Rhode Island 02601. The Committee will 
release its report, The Impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 on Legal Immigrants in Rhode 
Island. Updated information will be provided by invited civil rights 
advocates who participated in the original factfinding meeting. The 
Committee will also plan for future projects.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Olga Noguera, 
401-464-1876, or Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 
202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired persons who will 
attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language 
interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) 
working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, June 23, 2000.
Lisa M. Kelly,
Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Regional Programs Coordination 
Unit.
[FR Doc. 00-16427 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
# Comments on: 18-1763: AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING v. NEAPCO HOLDINGS LLC [ORDER], Precedential
Order entered September 29, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00709
- CR WENDELL LAMONT PERVIS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F94
- 41885
- T

O RDER
Before the Court is the State ’ s S eptember 23, 2020 motion for extension of
time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the State ’ s brief due on
October 2 6, 2020. On September 29, 2020, the Texarkana Court of Appeals emailed the
reporter ’ s record from the underl ying appeal. We ORDER the reporter ’ s record
filed in as of the date of this order.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>
                            THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
                            FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
                            FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                            CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S 1997
                            THIRD QUARTER 10Q AND IS  
		                QUALIFIED BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                            FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                          292,549
<SECURITIES>                     52,539
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,086,844
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                     870,136
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,570,150
<PP&E>                        4,687,131
<DEPRECIATION>                2,745,344
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                4,808,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,453,985
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                         81,595
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                    2,816,362
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  4,808,011
<SALES>                       4,293,472
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,293,472
<CGS>                         2,980,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 2,980,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               25,160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 489,223
<INCOME-TAX>                    158,997
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             330,226
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                        15,450
<NET-INCOME>                    345,676
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                      1.57
        

</TABLE>
Once hailed as a hero in Australia 

when it was introduced to control 

unwanted populations of exotic 

prickly pear cacti, the cactus moth 

has recently established itself as an 

American pest. Now it threatens 

native landscapes and agriculture 

in the Southern United States and 

Mexico. 

Detection Strategies

1. Check for Larvae. Adult 

moths are difficult to identify 

without dissection. So the best 

detection strategy is to look for the 

cactus moth’s distinctive larvae, or 

caterpillars. Mature larvae grow to a 

length of about 1.5 cm (0.5 in), and 

are reddish-orange with blackish 

spots forming transverse bands. In 

larvae in their final (sixth) instar, these 

transverse bands are nearly always 

divided into spots.

2. Check for Egg Sticks. Between 

late February and November, adult 

cactus moths lay chains of eggs called 

egg sticks that resemble the naturally 

occurring spines on prickly pear pads. 

The egg sticks are initially cream 

colored but darken to brown, and 

later almost black, shortly before the 

larvae emerge. The egg sticks look 

like prickly pear spines but are curved. 

An egg stick with about 70 eggs is 

approximately 2.4 cm (nearly 1 inch) 

long. Other native prickly pear-feeding 

moth species in the genus Melitara

also lay their eggs in sticks. Their egg 

sticks cannot reliably be distinguished 

from those of the cactus moth.

Cactus Moth (Cactoblastis cactorum) 

Cactus moth larvae.

Adult cactus moths (male on the left; 

female on the right).

Cactus moth egg stick.

INSECTS
3. Check for Hollowed Pads. 

Cactus moth larvae live and feed 

communally inside the pads of prickly 

pear cacti. Damaged pads will show 

characteristic oozing of internal plant 

juices and insect droppings. Cactus 

moth larvae have been found to eat 

most prickly pear cactus with flat pads 

in the genus Opuntia. However, the 

members of the genus Opuntia known 

as “cholla” cactus are not normally 

hosts of the cactus moth.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Photo credits: The photograph of the damaged 

prickly pear cactus was taken by Joel Floyd of 

APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine. The 

remaining images were shot by Ignacio Baez, 

a biological science technician with USDA’s 

Agricultural Research Service. 

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Program Aid No. 1833

Issued August 2005

Slightly revised August 2009

For more information about this pest, please 

visit www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/

plant_pest_info/cactoblastis/index.shtml.

Damage to prickly-pear cactus pad caused 

by larvae of the cactus moth.

INSECTS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COLUMBIA DIVISION

United States of America, the States of

California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,

Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, 

New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, 

Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and the

District of Columbia, ex rel. Laurence

Schneider,

C/A No. 3:13-cv-01223-JFA

Plaintiffs,

vs. ORDER

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, National

Association, J.P. Morgan Chase &

Company, and Chase Home Finance, LLC,

Defendants.

The United States having declined to intervene in this action pursuant to the False Claims 

Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4)(B), the Court rules as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that,

1. The complaint be unsealed and immediately served upon the defendants 

by the relator;

2. The entire docket in this action and all documents that have been filed in it

be unsealed;

3. The seal be lifted as to all other matters occurring in this action after the 

date of this order; 

4. The parties shall serve all pleadings and motions filed in this action, 

including supporting memoranda, upon the United States, as provided for in 31 U.S.C. 
3730(c)(3). The United States may order any deposition transcripts and is entitled to intervene in 

this action, for good cause, at any time;

5. The parties shall serve all notices of appeal upon the United States; 

6. All orders of this Court shall be sent to the United States; and that

7. Should the relator or the defendants propose that this action be dismissed, 

settled, or otherwise discontinued, the Court will solicit the written consent of the United States 

before ruling or granting its approval.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 24, 2014 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.

Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.1909 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1115 Return or refund of charges. ( a ) All refunds will be issued to the payer named in the appropriate block of the FCC Form 159. The full amount of any fee submitted will be returned or refunded, as appropriate, under the authority granted at § 0.231. ( 1 ) When no fee is required for the application or other filing. (*see* § 1.1111).
( 2 ) When the fee processing staff or bureau/office determines that an insufficient fee has been submitted within 30 calendar days of receipt of the application or filing and the application or filing is dismissed.
( 3 ) When the application is filed by an applicant who cannot fulfill a prescribed age requirement.
( 4 ) When the Commission adopts new rules that nullify applications already accepted for filing, or new law or treaty would render useless a grant or other positive disposition of the application.
( 5 ) When a waiver is granted in accordance with this subpart. Note:
Payments in excess of an application fee will be refunded only if the overpayment is $10 or more.
( 6 ) When an application for new or modified facilities is not timely filed in accordance with the filing window as established by the Commission in a public notice specifying the earliest and latest dates for filing such applications.
( b ) Comparative hearings are no longer required.
( c ) Applicants in the Media Services for first-come, first-served construction permits will be entitled to a refund of the fee, if, within fifteen days of the issuance of a Public Notice, applicant indicates that there is a previously filed pending application for the same vacant channel, such applicant notifies the Commission that they no longer wish their application to remain on file behind the first applicant and any other applicants filed before his or her application, and the applicant specifically requests a refund of the fee paid and dismissal of his or her application.
( d ) Applicants for space station licenses under the first-come, first served procedure set forth in part 25 of this title will be entitled to a refund of the fee if, before the Commission has placed the application on public notice, the applicant notifies the Commission that it no longer wishes to keep its application on file behind the licensee and any other applicants who filed their applications before its application, and specifically requests a refund of the fee and dismissal of its application.
[52 FR 5289, Feb. 20, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 40889, Oct. 19, 1988; 56 FR 795, Jan. 9, 1991; 56 FR 56602, Nov. 6, 1991. Redesignated at 59 FR 30998, June 16, 1994. Redesignated at 60 FR 5326, Jan. 27, 1995, as amended at 65 FR 49762, Aug. 15, 2000; 67 FR 46303, July 12, 2002; 67 FR 67337, Nov. 5, 2002; 68 FR 51502, Aug. 27, 2003; 69 FR 41177, July 7, 2004; 71 54234, Sept. 14, 2006. Redesignated and amended at 74 FR 3445, Jan. 21, 2009]