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

No. DA 21-0466

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN HUNTER ZITNIK,

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 November 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

October 13 2022

10/13/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0466
# EUR-Lex - 12006E128 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E128

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Three - Community policies - TITLE VIII - Employment - Article 128 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0102 - 0102 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0089 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0235 - Consolidated version *

Article 128

1. The European Council shall each year consider the employment situation in the Community and adopt conclusions thereon, on the basis of a joint annual report by the Council and the Commission.

2. On the basis of the conclusions of the European Council, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Employment Committee referred to in Article 130, shall each year draw up guidelines which the Member States shall take into account in their employment policies. These guidelines shall be consistent with the broad guidelines adopted pursuant to Article 99(2).

3. Each Member State shall provide the Council and the Commission with an annual report on the principal measures taken to implement its employment policy in the light of the guidelines for employment as referred to in paragraph 2.

4. The Council, on the basis of the reports referred to in paragraph 3 and having received the views of the Employment Committee, shall each year carry out an examination of the implementation of the employment policies of the Member States in the light of the guidelines for employment. The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, may, if it considers it appropriate in the light of that examination, make recommendations to Member States.

5. On the basis of the results of that examination, the Council and the Commission shall make a joint annual report to the European Council on the employment situation in the Community and on the implementation of the guidelines for employment.

--------------------------------------------------
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 9 -00 221 -CV P e te rD. Wa gne r , A ppe lla nt

v. Traveler s Lloyd s of T exas Insurance Com pany , Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 261S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-07- 0017 70 , HO NORAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N On J uly 14, 2009, this Court not ified appe llant that the cler k’s re cord in the a

bove cause was ove rdue. This Court r eq u es t ed that appellant make arr ang ements for the re cord a

nd submit a status report re g ardingthis appeal on or be fore J uly 24, 2009. This Court further infor med appellant that f

ailure to do so may result in the dismiss al of this a ppeal for want of prosec ution. The deadline has passed, and we have re ceive d no response from appe llant. Accor dingly , we dismiss the appea l for wa

nt of prosec ution. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Puryear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: August 31, 2009
§ 29.61 What information must I provide to the Service? You must submit the following information to the Service where your pre-existing operation is occurring by February 13, 2017 or 90 days after a boundary change or establishment of a new refuge: ( a ) Documentation demonstrating that you hold the right to operate on Service-administered lands or waters.
( b ) The names, phone numbers, and addresses of your: ( 1 ) Primary company representative;
( 2 ) Representative responsible for field supervision; and
( 3 ) Representative responsible for emergency response.
( c ) A brief description of your current operations, and any anticipated changes to current operations, including: ( 1 ) A scaled map clearly delineating your existing area of operations;
( 2 ) Documentation of the current operating methods, surface equipment, materials produced or used, and monitoring methods; and
( 3 ) Copies of all plans and permits required by local, State, and Federal agencies, including a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan if required by Environmental Protection Agency regulations at 40 CFR part 112.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V065 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V065

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART II — THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE UNION - TITLE I — DIGNITY - Article II-65 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0043 - 0043 *

Article II-65

Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

3. Trafficking in human beings is prohibited.

--------------------------------------------------
#### Julia A. Deegan, as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas E. Deegan, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Syracuse Lighting Company, Respondent.

(Argued February 27, 1907;

decided March 15, 1907.)

*Deegan*v. *Syracuse Lighting Co.,*111 App. Div. 908, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 15, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence.

*Charles E. Spencer*for appellant

*Ernest I. White*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Yann 'and Werner,.JJ. Not voting: Willard Bartlett, J. Not sitting: Hiscock, J.
###### Editorial Note on Part 660

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 660 appear at 67 FR 65906, Oct. 29, 2002, 88 FR 81358, Nov. 22, 2023.

###### Editorial Note on Subpart G of Part 660

#### Editorial Note:

At 88 FR 83859, Dec. 1, 2023, Subpart G was amended by revising all references to “Cordell Banks” to read “Cordell Bank” however, the amendment could not be incorporated because the term did not exist.

#### § 660.352 Recreational fishery—prohibitions.

These prohibitions are specific to the recreational fisheries. General groundfish prohibitions are found at § 660.12, subpart C. In addition to the general groundfish prohibitions specified in § 600.12, subpart C, of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to:

(a) Sell, offer to sell, or purchase any groundfish taken in the course of recreational groundfish fishing.

(b) Use fishing gear other than hook-and-line or spear for recreational fishing.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

LOG OF MEETING

SUBJECT: Meeting of ASTM F15.21 Sling Carrier Subcommittee

DATE OF MEETING: 2 October 2014

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Hope E.J. Nesteruk, ESHF

DATE OF LOG ENTRY: 16 October 2014

LOCATION: West Conshohocken, PA

CPSC ATTENDEE(S): Hope Nesteruk, Tim Smith, Max Sanborn, Suad 

Wanna-Nakamura, Barbara Little, Jill Jenkins, Patty Edwards

NON-CPSC ATTENDEE(S): contact ASTM for attendee list.

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

No ballot results, outstanding negatives, task group reports, or old business were 

discussed.

New business:

• The subcommittee chair announced that she was preparing a comment to the CPSC 

NPR that would request CPSC use ASTM F2907-14b instead of the proposed F2907-

14a.

• One test lab is proposing that the standard harmonize the test torso with the test 

torso that is used in ASTM F2236 rather than the torso that is used in BS EN 13209 

because the F2236 dummy is more realistically shaped and the exterior texture is 

more like a person. Discussion ensued regarding modifications that would need to 

be made to the test fixture to accommodate the different dummy. A task group was 

formed to investigate this change. CPSC staff will monitor the task group work.

A question was asked regarding the status of the standard. The subcommittee chair 

reported the status of the ASTM standard. Hope Nesteruk reported that the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking was published in late July and was currently in the public 

comment period, with comments due Monday, October 6, 2014. Additional questions 

regarding possible changes between the NPR and final rule were referred to the public 

comment period.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,332,934
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,517,002
<ALLOWANCES>                                   260,484
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,204,442
<PP&E>                                         524,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,324,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,907,232
<BONDS>                                     10,940,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        332
<COMMON>                                         4,073
<OTHER-SE>                                     372,433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,324,721
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,918,460
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,612,603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               225,231
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,443,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,362,999)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,362,999)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,362,999)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.07)
        

</TABLE>
# Map            Southwest Asia.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

In Re: ) BK No.:

)

) Chapter:

)

)

)

Debtor(s) )

Yashica Spellman

16-27238

13

Eastern Division

Honorable Carol Doyle

ORDER MODIFYING THE PLAN POST CONFIRMATION

THIS MATTER coming to be heard on the DEBTOR'S MOTION TO MODIFY, the Court having

jurisdiction, with due notice having been given to all parties in interest, the Court orders as follows:

 IT IS SO ORDERED:

 1. The Debtor's plan is modified post-confirmation by increasing the plan payment to $2,130 per

month until the end of the plan commencing with the July 2017 payment.

Honorable Carol A. Doyle

Enter:

Dated: July 18, 2017 United States Bankruptcy Judge

David H. Cutler, esq.

Counsel for Debtor(s):

Cutler & Associates, Ltd,

4131 Main St.

Skokie, IL 60076

Phone: (847) 673-8600

Prepared by:

Case 16-27238 Doc 45 Filed 07/18/17 Entered 07/27/17 10:48:48 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
§ 600.751 Determination of need for a fishery negotiation panel. A Council or NMFS may establish an FNP to assist in the development of specific fishery conservation and management measures. In determining whether to establish an FNP, NMFS or the Council, as appropriate, shall consider whether: ( a ) There is a need for specific fishery conservation and management measures.
( b ) There are a limited number of identifiable interests that will be significantly affected by the conservation and management measure.
( c ) There is a reasonable likelihood that an FNP can be convened with a balanced representation of persons who: ( 1 ) Can adequately represent the interests identified under paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) Are willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus on a report regarding the issues presented.
( d ) There is a reasonable likelihood that an FNP will reach a consensus on a report regarding the issues presented within 1 year from date of establishment of the FNP.
( e ) The use of an FNP will not unreasonably delay Council or NMFS fishery management plan development or rulemaking procedures.
( f ) The costs of establishment and operation of an FNP are reasonable when compared to fishery management plan development or rulemaking procedures that do not use FNP procedures.
( g ) The Council or NMFS has adequate resources and is willing to commit such resources, including technical assistance, to an FNP.
( h ) The use of an FNP is in the public interest.
#### § 1154.151 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the agency shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. The definitions, requirements and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 101-19.600 to 101-19.607, apply to buildings covered by this section.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 14

- 00114

- CR IN RE Manuel ALCOSER Jr. Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 5, 2014
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On February 8, 2014, relator Manuel Alcoser Jr. filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to direct the district court clerk to respond to a number of motions , which Alcoser contends were filed in his underlying criminal proceeding ove r the last several weeks . However, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. By statute, this court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other w rits as necessary to enforce appellate jurisdiction. See
T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221 (a)

- (b) ( West 2004)



### . We conclude the writ in this instance is not

necessa ry to enforce jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s pet ition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011CR5943, styled The State of Texas v. Manuel Alcoser Jr. , pending in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding.04

- 14

- 00114

- CR Even if we were to construe Alcoser’s petition as requesting mandamus relief against a proper respondent, however, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish a right to mandamus relief including, in a case such as this, that the motions at issue were properly filed, the trial co urt was made aware of the pending motions and the motions have awaited disposition for an unreasonable period of time. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a) (“Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”); In re Mendoza , 131 S.W.3d 167, 167

- 68 (Tex . App.

— San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). Alcose r has not provided this court with a record sufficient to establish his claim for relief. See In re Gallardo , 269 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2008, orig. proceeding). Additionally, relator requested leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52. Therefore, relator’s request for leave to file is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
§ 1008.6 Assuring integrity of records. ( a ) *Statutory requirement.* The Privacy Act requires that records subject to the Privacy Act be maintained with appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of records and to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any individual on whom information is maintained, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(10).
( b ) *Records security.* Whether maintained in physical or electronic form, records subject to the Privacy Act shall be maintained in a secure manner commensurate with the sensitivity of the information contained in the system of records. The Privacy Act Officer will periodically review these security measures to ensure their adequacy.
§ 23.92 Are any wildlife or plants, and their parts, products, or derivatives, exempt? ( a ) All living or dead wildlife and plants in Appendix I, II, and III and all their readily recognizable parts, products, and derivatives must meet the requirements of CITES and this part, except as indicated in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) The following are exempt from the requirements of CITES. You may be required to demonstrate that your specimen qualifies as exempt under this section. For specimens that are exempt from CITES requirements, you must still follow the clearance requirements for wildlife in part 14 of this subchapter and for plants in part 24 of this subchapter and 7 CFR parts 319, 352, and 355. ( 1 ) *Appendix-III wildlife and Appendix-II or -III plants.* ( i ) Where an annotation designates what is excluded from CITES requirements, any part, product, or derivative that is specifically excluded.
( ii ) Where an annotation designates what is covered by the Treaty, all parts, products, or derivatives that are not designated.
( 2 ) *Plant hybrids.* Specimens of an Appendix-II or -III plant taxon with an annotation that specifically excludes hybrids.
( c ) The following are exempt from CITES document requirements when certain criteria are met. ( 1 ) *Plant hybrids.* Seeds and pollen (including pollinia), cut flowers, and flasked seedlings or tissue cultures of hybrids that qualify as artificially propagated (see § 23.64) and that were produced from one or more Appendix-I species or taxa that are not annotated to treat hybrids as Appendix-I specimens.
( 2 ) *Flasked seedlings of Appendix-I orchids.* Flasked seedlings of an Appendix-I orchid species that qualify as artificially propagated (see § 23.64).
( 3 ) *Marine specimens listed in Appendix II that are protected under another treaty, convention, or international agreement which was in force on July 1, 1975* as provided in § 23.39(d).
( 4 ) *Coral sand and coral fragments* as defined in § 23.5.
( 5 ) *Personal and household effects* as provided in § 23.15.
( 6 ) *Urine, feces, and synthetically derived DNA* as provided in § 23.16.
( 7 ) *Certain wildlife hybrids* as provided in § 23.43.
[72 FR 48448, Aug. 23, 2007, as amended at 79 FR 30429, May 27, 2014]
# EUR-Lex - 12002M027C - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002M027C

**Treaty on European Union (Nice consolidated version) - Title V: Provisions on a common foreign and security policy - Article 27 c **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0020 - 0020 *

Treaty on European Union (Nice consolidated version)

Title V: Provisions on a common foreign and security policy

Article 27

Article 27c

Member States which intend to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves under Article 27b shall address a request to the Council to that effect.

The request shall be forwarded to the Commission and, for information, to the European Parliament. The Commission shall give its opinion particularly on whether the enhanced cooperation proposed is consistent with Union policies. Authorisation shall be granted by the Council, acting in accordance with the second and third subparagraphs of Article 23(2) and in compliance with Articles 43 to 45.
#### § 665.817 [Reserved]
#### § 1212.100 What does this part do?

This part carries out the portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.,* as amended) that applies to grants. It also applies the provisions of the Act to cooperative agreements and other financial assistance awards, as a matter of Federal Government policy.
Memo to: EPA Docket ( EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0218)

Subject: Meeting on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking f or “National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)-Radon from Opera ting Uranium Mill Tailings”, Subpart W of 40 CFR Part 61

On September 4, 2014, EPA staff members met with me mbers of the public in the EPA Region 8 offices in Denver, Colorado, to discuss the proposed rulema king “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)-Radon from Operating Uranium M ill Tailings”, Subpart W of 40 CFR Part 61. The following persons participated in the meeting:

Members of the Public: Sharyn Cunningham, Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste, Inc. Kay Hawklee, representing self Travis Stills, Energy Materials Law Center, attorne y representing Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste, Inc.

EPA: Jon Edwards, Director, EPA Radiation Protection Div ision (by telephone) Alan Perrin, Deputy Director, EPA Radiation Protect ion Division (by telephone) Anthony Nesky, Center for Radiation Information and Outreach, EPA Radiation Protection Division Tom Peake, Director, Center for Waste Management an d Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection Division

Dan Schultheisz, Associate Director, Center for Was te Management and Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection Division

In the meeting, members of the public discussed the ir concerns about the proposed rule revising Subpart W and the environmental impacts of uranium tailings. Much of the discussion pertained to the Cotter uranium mill in Canon City, Colorado. Other topics of discussion included the 1994 rescission of the NESHAPs for uranium mill tailings in Subpart T, the operational period in which Subpart W is applicable, and the desire for confirmed radon moni toring. The members of the public also reviewed previous interactions with EPA.