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

No. DA 20-0190

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHERYL HREN,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until November 30, 2020 to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

October 22 2020

10/22/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0190
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6623

“REVEREND DR.” ROBERT T. WEIDOW, #92391941,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHLAND COUNTY; RICHLAND COUNTY SOLICITOR’S

OFFICE; RICHLAND COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S

OFFICE; SUSAN S. QUINN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-00-1072-19BD)

Submitted: July 10, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert T. Weidow, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is dated April 25, 2000,

the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket

sheet on April 27, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was

physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Robert T. Weidow appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Weidow v. Richland County, No. CA-00-1072-19BD (D.S.C. Apr. 27,

2000).* We deny Weidow’s motions for bail and appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

I, Marc Angell, PrincipalExecutive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Music of Your Life, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed theannual report on Form 10-K of the Company;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; and

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the period presented in this annualreport.

 

Date: September 13, 2018

 

/s/ Marc Angell	

Marc Angell

Principal Executive Officer and Principal FinancialOfficer
From: savedbygrace77@netzero.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:27:50 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Verona LeBlanc

Eunice, LA 70535
From: mbkelsey1@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:05:22 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Bruce Kelsey

Auburn, IN 46706
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Pacific
Sunwear of California, Inc.'s Form 10Q for the quarterly period ended August 1,
1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1999
<CASH>                                      12,142,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,903,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 64,895,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            89,229,338
<PP&E>                                     113,155,100
<DEPRECIATION>                            (31,291,472)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             183,114,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       40,936,597
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       310,312
<OTHER-SE>                                 132,300,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               183,114,333
<SALES>                                    100,454,111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           100,454,111
<CGS>                                       65,655,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,050,993
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (126,185)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,873,904
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,574,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,299,904
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,299,904
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23


</TABLE>
From: mbarnha1@insight.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:26:00 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

H. Marianne Barnhart

Westerville, OH 43081
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with this Annual Report (the “Report”) of Forbes Energy Services Ltd. filed on Form 10-K (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, John E. Crisp, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge,that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: March 31, 2010
From: mccallgail@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:05:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gail McCall

Tallahassee, FL 32311
f '.• Scott rranklin 

CHAIRMAN 

210S. H.ORIOAAVE. 

LACELAND. H.ORtOA ) JSOl 

(863)fiS7-3788 

rAX(f63)68S-2'Ml 

i'miiil:.«scnigi;i®bkflan.)f.lc.ci>ni 

v/w\v.1.il;i'l;mJsilc.i<)n 

./ 

.ucj-ARTMENTOFv 

^--^£1 OPERATIONS ••v."r V 

MOOCI-u , A q:2Lj 

iJXKamVEnfRRCTOR 

The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S£ 

Washington, DC 20590 

August 20, 2010 

RE: Grant Application for Small Community Air Service Development Program 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

The Lakeland Economic Development Council endorses Lakeland Linder Regional Airport's grant 

application for the Department of Transportation's Small Community Air Service Development Program. 

We share the Airport's goal of attracting low fare commercial service to the region to foster economic 

growth and improve quality of life options for the citizens in our community. The presence of a low fare 

carrier would play a pivotal role in the future growth and economic development of our City and County. 

Both the City of Lakeland and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) have recognized the 

importance of the airport to the region. The City is investing over $1.4M on infrastructure projects to 

prepare for commercial service. Additionally, the City provides police and fire services at no cost to the 

airport, saving over $450,000 annually from the rate base which carriers would otherwise have to pay. 

In August 2010, FDOT granted the airport $2M to fund the improvements necessary to accommodate 

scheduled flight operations; these include ticketing areas, baggage claim, baggage make-up areas, sterile 

areas, the security checkpoint, access controls, CCTV, additional facility square footage, and offices for 

T.S.A. 

Lakeland Linder Regional Airport currently operates under a Part 139 Certificate and is completing its 

work with T.S.A. and will be in a position to launch its commercial program in the beginning of 2011. 

Low fare service to Lakeland would not only benefit our region, but also to the small communities where 

the flights will operate, providing those cities with the economic benefit of stimulated air travel and 

lower airfares. 

We request that you act favorably on this application and help our community greatly enhance 

transDortatlon assets. 

our 

transportation assets 

Sincerely, 

veScruggs 

Executive Director
----

|                                                 |   |                             |   |                                         |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
| Delaware(STATE OR OTHERJURISDICTION OFINCORPORATION) |   | 001-11241(COMMISSION FILENUMBER) |   | 37-1105865(IRS EMPLOYERIDENTIFICATIONNUMBER) |

|                                                                                                                               |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| 2120 West End Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee    37203-0001(ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES)    (ZIP CODE) |

----

|    |   |                                                            |
|---------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Exhibit |   |                                                            |
| Number  |   | Description                                                     |
| 5.1     |   | Opinion of Sidley Austin LLP, as to the legality of the Notes.  |
|    |   |                                                            |
| 23.1    |   | Consent of Sidley Austin LLP (included as part of Exhibit 5.1). |
|    |   |                                                            |

----

|   |   |                                       |                                                         |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   | Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation |                                                         |   |
|   |   |                                       |                                                         |   |   |
|   |   | By:                                        | /s/ J. Wesley Blumenshine                                    |   |   |
|   |   |                                       |                                                         |   |   |
|   |   |                                       | Name: J. Wesley BlumenshineTitle:   Secretary |   |   |

----

|    |   |                                                            |
|---------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Exhibit |   |                                                            |
| Number  |   | Description                                                     |
| 5.1     |   | Opinion of Sidley Austin LLP, as to the legality of the Notes.  |
|    |   |                                                            |
| 23.1    |   | Consent of Sidley Austin LLP (included as part of Exhibit 5.1). |
|    |   |                                                            |

----
#### James D. Cockcroft et al., Appellants, *v.*John V. Cockcroft et al., Respondents, and Georgia C. Cockcroft, Appellant.

*Cockcroft*v. Cockcroft, 146 App. Div. 878, affirmed.

(Argued January 20, 1913;

decided February 4, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 13, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants, respondents, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to establish a trust in certain real property.

*Franklin Pierce*and *Walter Large*for appellants.

*Edward S. Clinch*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback and Miller, JJ.
No. 61027.

protests 69853-K, etc. (New York).

#### Harry Schoenfeld and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “K” consist of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) or *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 83, C. D. 1802) and the.items marked “L” of lambskin plates similar to those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643) or C. D. 1802, *supra,*the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in C. D. 1480 and C. D. 1643, *supra.*
CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        -----------------------------------------------------------------



I, Jeffrey G. Webb,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of Varsity  Brands,
Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
       ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
       on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
       Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
       78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  August 14, 2002    /s/Jeffrey G. Webb
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           Jeffrey G. Webb
                           President, Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>



        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        -----------------------------------------------------------------



I, John M.  Nichols,  Chief  Financial  Officer of  Varsity  Brands,  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
       ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
       on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
       Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
       78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  August 14, 2002    /s/ John M. Nichols
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           John M. Nichols
                           Chief Financial Officer