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

DA 23 0290

Robert D. Frisk,

 

Plaintiff/Appellee ORDER GRANING

vs. APPELLEE’S SECOND EXTENTION

 TO FILE OPENING BRIF

John N. Thomas and Lori A. Thomas,

Defendants/Appellants.

Pursuant to the authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(2), the Appellee is

granted an extension of time up to and including December 30th , 2023, to prepare,

file, and serve the Appellee’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 17 2023

11/17/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0290
OSLDPS Information Bulletin

No. 00-008 July 24, 2000

TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads

All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact

FROM: C.H. “Butch” Straub, II

Director

SUBJECT: Additional Guidance for Registering Users of the On-Line Data Collection Tool

The user registration module for the on-line data collection tool has now been activated by the

Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness (OSLDPS), Office of Justice Programs (OJP). 

As you know, the on-line data collection tool is being made available for States who choose to

use this method to submit needs assessment data and strategic plans. The user registration

module will allow State Administrative Agencies (SAAs) to approve other state and local users

who will participate in the data entry process. 

The registration module may be accessed from the OSLDPS home page located at the following

URL: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/osldps. Icons for the tool are located under “What’s New” on the

home page, as well as on the Assessments and Grant pages. After you locate the icon, simply

click on “Registration Module” and follow the instructions provided.

The registration module has been developed to give control of the registration process to the

SAAs. Once your SAA point of contact (called the State Contact) registers and is approved by

OSLDPS, that person will then be able to approve the registration of: 1) other SAA users (called

State Representatives); 2) the State Public Health Representative; and, Local Threat/Risk

Jurisdiction users. (Note: Once approved by the State Contact, the State Public Health

Representative will be responsible for approving the registration of all local Public Health

Jurisdiction users.) A process flow diagram has been attached to this information bulletin to

provide you with a reference tool to share with other state and local users of the system.

As a reminder, OJP will implement the second phase of the data collection process on August 1,

2000. At that time, software will be made available on-line for local jurisdiction data input. 

SAAs will be able to input data beginning August 15, 2000, when the third phase of the on-line

process is implemented. In anticipation of this, OSLDPS requests that you provide a complete list

of all state and local users of the on-line data collection tool to your OSLDPS program manager.

For technical assistance with the on-line data collection tool, you may contact the OJP toll-free

help line at: 1-888-549-9901. You may also contact your OSLDPS program manager for
additional information and assistance related to conduct of the needs assessment and development

of your state strategy. 

I look forward to working with you and your colleagues during the implementation of this

program to enhance state and local emergency response capabilities.

Attachment
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.279 Restrictions on sale/purchase. ( a ) Dolphin or wahoo harvested in or from the Atlantic EEZ or adjoining state waters by a vessel that has a valid commercial vessel permit for Atlantic dolphin and wahoo, as required under § 622.270(a)(1), or by a vessel authorized a 200-lb (91-kg) trip limit for dolphin or wahoo, as specified in § 622.278(a)(2), may be sold or transferred only to a dealer who has a valid Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit, as required under § 622.270(d)(1).
( b ) In addition to the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a person may not sell dolphin or wahoo possessed under the recreational bag limit harvested in the Atlantic EEZ or adjoining state waters by a vessel while it is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. A dolphin or wahoo harvested or possessed by a vessel that is operating as a charter vessel or headboat with a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Atlantic dolphin and wahoo may not be purchased or sold if harvested in or from the Atlantic EEZ or adjoining state waters.
( c ) Dolphin or wahoo harvested in or from the Atlantic EEZ may be first received only by a dealer who has a valid Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit, as required under § 622.270(d)(1), and only from a vessel authorized to sell dolphin and wahoo under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( d ) Dolphin or wahoo possessed pursuant to the bag and possession limits specified in § 622.277(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(ii) may not be sold or purchased.
[79 FR 19496, Apr. 9, 2014, as amended at 80 FR 80689, Dec. 28, 2015]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7681

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ERNEST STERLING WRIGHT, a/k/a Petey Wise,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, 

District Judge. (4:96-cr-00022-RAJ-2)

Submitted: March 9, 2015 Decided: March 13, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Sterling Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Sterling Wright 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 satisfies 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 (2003). 

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 

Wright 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
46897.

#### HARPER v. HARPER.

(378 SE2d 673)

Gregory, Justice.

On February 16, 1989, applicant Donald Harper was denied a new trial in a divorce action in Schley Superior Court. On March 17, 1989, he filed an application for discretionary appeal in this Court under OCGA § 5-6-35.

We are denying this discretionary application by means of this opinion in order to clarify the meaning of the sentence “An applicant may include copies of such other parts of the record or transcript as he deems appropriate” in OCGA § 5-6-35 (c).

In his application Donald contended in pertinent part that the trial court failed to give several jury charges. In her response, Carol Harper argued that because Donald failed to include relevant portions of the transcript, there was nothing beyond Donald’s own assertions to show the possible presence of error. She further argued that the transcript would have shown that Donald was complaining about jury instructions he failed to request or except to.

The language in subsection 5-6-35 (c) specifying that the applicant *“shall*include as exhibits to the petition a copy of the order or judgment being appealed. . . .” is clearly mandatory. Conversely, the language specifying that the applicant *“may*include copies of such other parts of the record or transcript as he deems appropriate” is clearly directory.

It is not necessary in every instance to include parts of the record or transcript. In some cases the parties may agree about what happened in the trial court. In other cases the applicant or respondent may quote or paraphrase relevant portions of the record or transcript.

If the parties to the application agree on what happened in the trial court and adequately present it to the appellate court there is no need for parts of the record or transcript. But where a part of the record or transcript is necessary in order for the appellate court to determine whether or not the application should be granted, that part should be included with the application or response.

In any event, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that the application should be granted. The standard this Court will follow in discretionary applications is to grant an application only when reversible error appears to exist or the establishment of a precedent is desirable. Georgia Supreme Court Rule 25 (a). Subsection 5-6-35 (c) does not require an applicant to include relevant portions of *247the record or transcript. But unless the alleged errors are otherwise established as, for instance, by the agreement of the parties on appeal or by a quote or paraphrase from the record or transcript, a prudent applicant should support the assertions of error with relevant parts of the record or transcript.

Decided April 10, 1989

Reconsideration denied May 25, 1989.

*R. Avon Buice,*for appellant.

*McFarland, Fuller & McFarland, Thomas R. McFarland,*for appellee.

Because the applicant in this case failed to adequately demonstrate reversible error, his application is denied.

*Application denied.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 217.177 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization. ( a ) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.176 for the activity identified in § 217.170(a) may be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that: ( 1 ) The specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for these regulations; and
( 2 ) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were implemented.
( b ) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register, including the associated analysis of the change, and solicit public comment before issuing the LOA.
( c ) A LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.176 for the activity identified in § 217.170(a) may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances: ( 1 ) NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with Navy regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring set forth in the preamble for these regulations; ( i ) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in a LOA: ( A ) Results from Navy's monitoring from previous years;
( B ) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; and
( C ) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs; and
( ii ) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and solicit public comment;
( 2 ) If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in a LOA issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.176, a LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notification would be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of the action.
### IN THE CO URT OF APPEALS OF TE NNE SS EE

AT JACKSON

Ja nu ary 18 , 20 12 Ses si on

IN RE: ANG ELA T., EK ENE T., a nd EMB ER T.

D i r e c t A p p e a l f

r o m t h e C h a n c e r y C o u r t f o r M a d i s o n C o u n t y

N o

. 5 6 9 5 1 W i l l i a m C

. C o l e , C h a n c e l l o r b y D e s i g n a t i o n

N o

. W 2 0 1 1

- 0 1 5 8 8

- C O A

- R 3

- P T

- F i l e d F e b r u a r y 2 3

, 2 0 1 2

C O N C U R R I N G I N P A R T A N D P A R T I A L D I S S E N T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

H O L L Y M

. K I R B Y

, J U D G E

, C O N C U R R I N G I N P A R T A N D P A R T I A L D I S S E N T :

I c o n c u r f

u l l y i n t h e m a

j o r i t y ’ s f i n d i n g t h a t F a t h e r a b a n d o n e d h i s c h i l d r e n b y w i l l f u l f a i l u r e

t o v i s i t t h e m

. I m u s t r e l u c t a n t l y d i s s e n t f r o m t h e m a

j o r i t y ’ s f i n d i n g t h a t F a t h e r ’ s c h i l d

s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s d u r i n g t h e p i v o t a l f o u r

- m o n t h p e r i o d a m o u n t e d t o a b a n d o n m e n t b y w i l l f u l

f a i l u r e t o s u p p o r t

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t v i e w e d F a t h e r ’ s t e s t i m o n y a n d c o n s i d e r e d h i s p a y m e n t

h i s t o r y d u r i n g t h e f

o u r

- m o n t h p e r i o d

, a n d f o u n d n o w i l l f

u l i n t e n t t o a b a n d o n

. W h i l e F a t h e r

c l e a r l y h a d t h e m e a n s t o p a y h i s f u l l c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n

, i n v i e w o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s

f i n d i n g a n d t h e e v i d e n c e o n h i s p a y m e n t s

, I m u s t r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s a g r e e t h a t t h e r e c o r d s h o w s

b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e a b a n d o n m e n t b y f a i l u r e t o s u p p o r t

.

T h e r e f o r e

, I c o n c u r i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t i n p a r t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H O L L Y M

. K I R B Y

, J U D G E
No. 11-66.

#### Izen *v.*Commission on Lawyer Discipline.

Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-51042

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHELLY MIXON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CR-175-2

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and HIGGINSON and COSTA, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shelly Mixon appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty-plea 

conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute heroin. Citing 

United States v. Rivas-Estrada, 906 F.3d 346, 348-50 (5th Cir. 2018), she 

complains that the district court’s oral pronouncement of the special condition

of supervised release requiring her to submit to searches of her property and 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 4, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-51042 Document: 00515103832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2019
No. 18-51042

2

person was insufficient and conflicted with the written judgment. Mixon 

concedes that, as part of her plea, she waived the right to appeal her sentence, 

but she notes that she reserved the right to raise a claim of ineffective 

assistance, and she asserts that the record is sufficiently developed to consider 

the claim on direct appeal.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is 

the preferred method for raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-09 (2003). Contrary to Mixon’s 

argument, her claim was not developed sufficiently in the district court to 

enable this court to evaluate it. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 

(5th Cir. 1987). We therefore decline to consider Mixon’s ineffective assistance 

of counsel claim without prejudice to her right to assert the claim on collateral 

review. See United States Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014); Higdon, 

832 F.2d at 314.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 Case: 18-51042 Document: 00515103832 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2019
§ 90.135 Modification of license. ( a ) In addition to those changes listed in § 1.929(k) of this chapter and in accordance with § 1.947 of this chapter the following modifications may be made to an existing authorization without prior Commission approval: ( 1 ) Change in the number and location of station control points or of control stations operating below 470 or above 800 MHz meeting the requirements of § 90.119(b).
( 2 ) Change in the number of mobile units operated by Radiolocation Service licensees.
( b ) Unless specifically exempted in § 90.175, licensees must submit a Form 601 application for modification to the applicable frequency coordinator for any change listed in § 1.929(c)(4) of this chapter.
[65 FR 60875, Oct. 13, 2000]
Case 16-25561 Doc 10 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/15/16 10:51:48 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
# EUR-Lex - 12002E271 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E271

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Five: Institutions of the Community - Title II: Financial provisions - Article 271 - Article 202 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 202 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0141 - 0141 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0287 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0071 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Five: Institutions of the Community

Title II: Financial provisions

Article 271

Article 202 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 202 - EEC Treaty

Article 271

The expenditure shown in the budget shall be authorised for one financial year, unless the regulations made pursuant to Article 279 provide otherwise.

In accordance with conditions to be laid down pursuant to Article 279, any appropriations, other than those relating to staff expenditure, that are unexpended at the end of the financial year may be carried forward to the next financial year only.

Appropriations shall be classified under different chapters grouping items of expenditure according to their nature or purpose and subdivided, as far as may be necessary, in accordance with the regulations made pursuant to Article 279.

The expenditure of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Justice shall be set out in separate parts of the budget, without prejudice to special arrangements for certain common items of expenditure.
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.404 Prohibited gear and methods. Also see § 622.9 for additional prohibited gear and methods that apply more broadly to multiple fisheries or in some cases all fisheries. ( a ) A spiny lobster may not be taken in the EEZ with a spear, hook, or similar device, or gear containing such devices. In the EEZ, the possession of a speared, pierced, or punctured spiny lobster is *prima facie* evidence that prohibited gear was used to take such lobster. Hook, as used in this paragraph (a), does not include a hook in a hook-and-line fishery for species other than spiny lobster; and possession of a spiny lobster that has been speared, pierced, or punctured by such hook is not considered evidence that prohibited gear was used to take the spiny lobster, provided no prohibited gear is on board the vessel.
( b ) A spiny lobster may not be taken in a directed fishery by the use of a net or trawl. See § 622.408(b)(4) for the bycatch limits applicable to a vessel that uses or has on board a net or trawl.
( c ) Poisons and explosives may not be used to take a spiny lobster in the EEZ. For the purposes of this paragraph (c), chlorine, bleach, and similar substances, which are used to flush a spiny lobster out of rocks or coral, are poisons. A vessel in the spiny lobster fishery may not possess on board in the EEZ any dynamite or similar explosive substance.
( d ) Except for black sea bass pots and golden crab traps as allowed in § 622.188 and § 622.248, respectively, the possession of all other traps is prohibited onboard a vessel in the South Atlantic EEZ when spiny lobster subject to the recreational bag and possession limits specified in § 622.408 is also onboard the vessel. The recreational harvest of spiny lobster using a trap is prohibited in the South Atlantic EEZ.
( e ) In the EEZ off Florida, simultaneous possession of a bully net and any underwater breathing apparatus, not including dive masks or snorkels, onboard a vessel used to harvest or transport spiny lobster for commercial purposes is prohibited in accordance with Rule 68B-24.007(5), Florida Administrative Code, in effect as of May 1, 2017 (incorporated by reference, see § 622.19). For the purpose of this paragraph, an “underwater breathing apparatus” is any apparatus, whether self-contained or connected to a distant source of air or other gas, whereby a person wholly or partially submerged in water is able to obtain or reuse air or any other gas or gasses for breathing without returning to the surface of the water.
( f ) In the EEZ off Florida, vessels that are or are required to be marked with or have identification associated with a bully net permit for the harvest of spiny lobster are prohibited from having trap pullers aboard, in accordance with Rule 68B-24.006(8), the Florida Administrative Code, in effect as of May 1, 2017 (incorporated by reference, see § 622.19).
[78 FR 22952, Apr. 17, 2013, as amended at 83 FR 29047, June 22, 2018; 84 FR 37152, July 31, 2019; 87 FR 56237, Sept. 13, 2022]
###### Editorial Note on Part 300

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 300 appear at 64 FR 44431, Aug. 16, 1999, and at 76 FR 59305, Sept. 26, 2011.

#### § 300.120 Purpose.

This subpart implements fishery conservation and management measures as provided in fishery agreements pursuant to the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Colombia Concerning the Status of Quita Sueno, Roncador and Serrana (TIAS 10120) (Treaty).