alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 90-414 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1991

THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent,-vsBRIAN TRENT WELDELE, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Honorable Jeffrey Sherlock, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Charles A. Graveley,Helena,Montana. For Respondent: Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General, State of Montana, Helena, Montana; Michael 

### J. Rieley, Assistant City Attorney, City of EastHelena,Luxan & Murfitt, Helena,Montana.
Submitted: March 28, 1991 Decided: May 

### 7, 1991 Filed:
STA-rEGFii~~ei+~i~ii~

### Chief Justice J. 

### A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. Brian Trent Weldele appeals an order and a judgment of the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County,which denied his motion to dismiss and found him guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol (third offense), amisdemeanor. The District Court sentenced Weldele to the following: one year imprisonment with thirty days suspended, a $1,000.00 fine, a $10.00 mandatory surcharge fee, court costs, suspended his driver's license, and ordered him to attend the ACT program through Boyd Andrew Care Center. We affirm. The sole issue presented on appeal is a factual dispute: following his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, did Weldele request a blood test during the booking process, and did the arresting police officerdeny him this right? A 

### videotape of the Weldelelsbooking process, although poor in quality, is consistent with the arresting police officer's testimony that although Weldele once inquired aboutablood test, he never at any time requested that 

### a blood test

### beperformed. We therefore agree with theDistrict Courtand hold that,baseduponthevideotape and the testimony of the arresting police officer, Weldele did not request a blood test during the booking process and accordingly, was not denied his right to a blood test. Pursuant to Section 

### I,Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court OperatingRules, thisdecision shall not be cited as precedent andshall be published by its filing as a public document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to West Publishing Company. Let remittitur issue forthwith.

We concur:

### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 90-414
THE STATE OF MONTANA, 

### 1 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

### 1

-- - -- 

### 1

- 

# ;- --- --

- v. 

### 1 BRIAN TRENTWELDELE, 

### 1 1 Defendant and Appellant. 

### 1

On May 7, 1991, the Opinion of this Court was issued in the above-entitled appeal. Itappearingthat there isan error in said Opinion, IT IS ORDERED that the following language found at page 2 of the Opinion of this Court dated May 7, 1991, 

# . . . one year imprisonmentwith thirty days suspended,

# .

# . .I8 be amended toread,
It. 

# . . one year imprisonment with all but thirty days suspended,
The Clerk 

### is directed to mail a true copy of this order to coun.selof DATED record for the respective parties. this 

### ) day 

### of May, 1991.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT IRVING WEISER, JOHN C.
APPEL, AND DAVID J. PARRIN, AND EACH OF THEM, HIS TRUE AND LAWFUL
ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT AND AGENTS, WITH FULL POWERS OF SUBSTITUTION AND
RESUBSTITUTION, FOR HIM AND IN HIS NAME, PLACE AND STEAD, IN ANY AND ALL
CAPACITIES, TO SIGN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF DAIN RAUSCHER CORPORATION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND ALL AMENDMENTS TO SUCH ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K, AND TO FILE THE SAME WITH ALL EXHIBITS THERETO, AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
GRANTING UNTO SAID ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT AND AGENTS, EACH ACTING ALONE, FULL POWER
AND AUTHORITY TO DO AND PERFORM TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES AS HE MIGHT OR COULD
DO IN PERSON, HEREBY RATIFYING ALL THAT SAID ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT AND AGENTS, EACH
ACTING ALONE, OR HIS SUBSTITUTES, MAY LAWFULLY DO OR CAUSE TO BE DONE BY VIRTUE
THEREOF.

         SIGNATURE                                              DATE

-----------------------------                        ---------------------------
         JOHN C. APPEL

-----------------------------                        ---------------------------
         J. EVANS ATTWELL

------------------------------                       ---------------------------
         SUSAN S. BOREN

------------------------------                       ---------------------------
         F. GREGORY FITZGERALD

------------------------------                       ---------------------------
         WALTER F. MONDALE

-------------------------------                      ---------------------------
         C. A. RUNDELL, JR.

-------------------------------                      ---------------------------
         ROBERT L. RYAN




<PAGE>

-------------------------------                      ---------------------------
         ARTHUR R. SCHULZE, JR.

-------------------------------                      ---------------------------
         IRVING WEISER

-------------------------------                      ---------------------------
         KENNETH J. WESSELS
EXHIBIT 23.2


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements  on Form S-8 (Nos.  333-56351 and  033-60197) of Infodata  Systems,
Inc.  of our  report  dated  March  12,  1999  on the  consolidated  financial
statements of Infodata Systems,  Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and for the year
then ended appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.


/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
McLean, Virginia
March 30, 1999
No. 61323.

protest 170154-K (Ogdensburg).

#### E. Dillingham, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of purebred cattle similar in all material respects to those the subject of *E. Dillingham, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 109, C. D. 1356), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 48465.

#### Protests 16184-K, etc., of Alex Lee Wallau, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
TS-P999BH 

## Process Flow Sheet ( CBI ) Attachment 5 Page 1/1

CBI
----

----

I Information

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

18 October 2006

(2006/C 253/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----

----

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises

(2006/C 253/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

----

Adoption of three reference documents for the purpose of Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1)

(2006/C 253/03)

On 25 July 2006, the Commission adopted the complete texts of the reference documents on:

These documents are available on the Internet site:

http://eippcb.jrc.es.

----

(1)OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p.26

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4291 — Voestalpine/Profilafroid/SAP)

(2006/C 253/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 19 September 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4256 — Xstrata/Falconbridge)

(2006/C 253/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 13 July 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4332 — MEAS/DSPL/Sadoport)

(2006/C 253/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 3 October 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in Portuguese and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-437

_____________________________

YVES SAINTYL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

March 28, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes and 

Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

1 All references to Rule 16 refer to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN BOWMAN, an individual; and )

DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, )

EDUCATION SERVICES: HELPING YOU )

HELP OTHERS, a California public )

benefit corporation, )

) 2:04-cv-0755-GEB-PAN

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

BEST WESTERN STATION HOUSE INN; )

THE WILLIFORD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, )

L.P., a California limited )

partnership; BEST WESTERN INTER- )

NATIONAL, INC., an Arizona )

corporation and LEWIS T. WILLIFORD,)

an individual dba BEST WESTERN )

STATION HOUSE INN, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On December 13, 2005, Defendant Best Western International,

Inc. (“BWI”), filed a motion requesting leave to file a summary

judgment motion (“Motion”) for hearing after the law and motion

deadline prescribed by the Rule 16 Scheduling Order governing this

action.1 (See Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, July 5, 2005.)

Case 2:04-cv-00755-GEB-PAN Document 34 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

On December 13, 2005, BWI also filed an ex parte application

requesting that the Motion be briefed and heard on shortened time. 

Rule 16 allows a Scheduling Order to be modified upon a

showing of good cause. BWI argues that good cause exists because its

counsel failed to calender the law and motion cut-off date due to

inadvertence, mistake, and/or neglect. In addition, BWI argues good

cause exists because a “favorable disposition on the motion for

summary judgment will completely dispose of the matter against

BWI . . . [and] will also reduce the number of issues and witnesses at

trial.” However, a calendering mistake or the possibility of a

favorable disposition do not constitute “good cause” under Rule 16(b). 

See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th

Cir. 1992) (stating that the “good cause” standard focuses on the

diligence of the party seeking modification). Therefore the Motion is

denied. See id. (concluding that if the party seeking modification

fails to demonstrate diligence “the inquiry should end”). The

application to shorten time is also denied because it no longer

concerns a pending motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00755-GEB-PAN Document 34 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

BUSTER L. GASKIN, JR., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-928 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 11, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christopher C. Sabella, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
No. 59514.

protests 173821-K, etc. (Ogdensburg).

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 51

SUSPENSION OF EXCLUSIVE AGENCY STATUS OF
IRAQI STATE COMPANY FOR WATER TRANSPORTATION

Pursuant to my authority as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority
(CPA), and under the laws and usages of war, and consistent with relevant U.N.
Security Council resolutions, including Resolutions 1483 and 1511 (2003),

Noting that the Iraqi State Company for Water Transportation (hereafter “the
Company”) is the successor in interest to the Iraqi State Organization for Water
Transportation (hereafter “the Organization”),

Noting further that the Company has performed exclusively as the maritime agent
in Iraqi ports, a role previously performed by the Iraqi State Enterprise for Iraqi
Maritime Agencies, a body of the Organization;

Understanding that the rights and obligations of the Organization have devolved
upon the Company,

Determined to create conditions for the development of a free market economy by
encouraging trade and open competition,
I hereby promulgate the following:

Section 1
Suspension of Exclusive Agency Status

1) The right of the Company to act as the exclusive maritime agent in Iraqi ports
is hereby suspended. The Company shall, however, be permitted to provide
maritime agency services in competition with other companies.

2) To the extent that Article 1 of Law Number 56 of 1985 (Maritime Agencies) or

any other provision of Iraqi law is inconsistent with this Order, those
inconsistent provisions are suspended.

CPA/ORD/14 January 2004/51


Section 2
Entry into Force

Thi,

der shall enter into force on the date of signature.

) Aenf U) Des | A Firws

L. Paul Bremer, Administrator J
Coalition Provisional Authority

CPA/ORD/814January 2004/51
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEVIN MITCHELL : CIVIL ACTION

:

: NO. 02-4439

 VS. : 

:

TRANS UNION, LLC, ET AL

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of SEPTEMBER, 2002, in accordance

with the court’s procedure for random reassignment, it is hereby, 

ORDERED that the above captioned case is reassigned from the

calendar of the Honorable Stewart Dalzell to the Honorable Anita B. Brody.

FOR THE COURT:

 

JAMES T. GILES

Chief Judge

ATTEST:

 

MICHAEL E. KUNZ

Clerk of Court

Case 2:02-cv-04439-JF Document 11 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 1 of 1
F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 30 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH

PENNSYLVANIA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION, as successor to the

Resolution Trust Corporation, as receiver

for Pioneer Savings and Loan Association,

and as conservator of Pioneer Federal

Savings and Loan Association,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-3204

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

(D.C. No. 94-2088-GTV)

Gregory E. Gore, Counsel (Ann S. DuRoss, Assistant General Counsel, Thomas L. Hindes,

Senior Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with him on the brief), Washington,

D.C., for Defendant-Appellant.

Charles M. Thomas (Charles H. Stitt and Kenton E. Snow with him on the brief), of Craft

Fridkin & Rhyne, Kansas City, Missouri, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BRORBY, HOLLOWAY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.
-2-

__________________________________

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of an insurer in a

declaratory judgment action. The district court held that due to the late filing of proof of

loss, recovery was barred under fidelity bonds issued to the savings and loan association.

National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. FDIC, 923 F. Supp. 1402 (D. Kan. 1996). The Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as successor to the receiver for the savings and loan

association, appealed.

Under the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, K.S.A. 60-3201, et seq.,

we certified to the Kansas Supreme Court the following question: “Does the failure by an

insured to provide a proof of loss within the limit provided by a fidelity bond of the type

involved here justify denial of coverage under the bond without the insurer showing that it

has been substantially prejudiced by the untimely proof of loss?” The Supreme Court of

Kansas, on the facts submitted to it by our court in the certification, held that the answer

under Kansas law is “No.” National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 957 P.2d 357 (Kan. 1998).

In light of the response under Kansas law, which controls, the summary judgment

entered in the instant case by the district court must be vacated, and the case must be

remanded to that court for reconsideration and further proceedings.

It is so ordered and the mandate shall issue forthwith.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD JUSTICE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0684 GEB PAN P

vs.

JAN SCULLY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed May 18, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing

why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. On May 31, 2006, plaintiff filed

requests for entry of default against defendants Wagg and Rall together with a motion for default

judgment. Said motions were served on defendants on the same day. 

The record reflects that defendant Wagg signed a waiver of service on October 22,

2004, and defendant Rall signed a waiver of service on December 22, 2004. Neither defendant

has appeared in the action. Good cause appearing, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to enter

the default of said defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The court intends to rule on plaintiff’s

motion for default judgment within ninety days from the date of this order.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00684-GEB-EFB Document 21 Filed 07/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The May 18, 2006 order to show cause is discharged;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the default of defendant Mark Rall

and defendant Gary Wagg;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order by certified mail

on Mark Rall, Office of the District Attorney, Sacramento County (Investigation Unit), 901 G

Street, Sacramento, California 95814;

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order by certified mail

on Gary Wagg, Office of the District Attorney, Sacramento County (Investigation Unit), 901 G

Street, Sacramento, California 95814; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order by certified mail

on Jan Scully, District Attorney, Sacramento County, 901 G Street, Sacramento, California

95814.

DATED: July 27, 2006.

12

just0684.def

Case 2:04-cv-00684-GEB-EFB Document 21 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 57239.

protests 145434-K, etc. (New York).

#### Freund-Mayer Co., Inc., and H. W. Robinson & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the paper napkins which were the subject of *Freund Mayer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 123, C. A. D. 474). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the cited authority, it was held that the merchandise entered prior to January 1, 1948, is dutiable at 30 percent under the provision in paragraph 1413 for paper, embossed, cut, die-cut, or stamped into shapes, and that which was entered subsequent to said date is dutiable at 15 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802). It was further stipulated that other items of the merchandise consist of manufactures of paper wadding or manufactures of pulp wadding similar in all material respects to importations of manufactures of paper wadding and manufactures of pulp wadding which are currently being so classified pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1404, as modified by T. D. 51802. Upon the agreed statement of facts, it was held that such merchandise is dutiable at 6 cents per pound and 7)4 percent ad valorem under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802.
From:

Sent: 8/30/2005 9:47:16 AM
To:

Dear Ms. Howard,

During our August 24, 2010 meeting at your office, the Vinyl Institute displayed a data base that utilized concentrations from submitted data per the Section 114 Request. EPA expressed an interest in obtaining our data base. Please accept our apologies for the late submission of this information, but our members wanted to be sure the information was properly vetted before it was submitted for your consideration and use. The attached letter provides additional support explanation about the data base as well. We trust that EPA finds this information of interest. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions that may arise.

Regards,

Richard Krock Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute 1737 King Street Suite 390 Alexandria, VA 22314 Direct: 571.970.3392 Mobile: 571.216.4474 Fax: 571.970.3271 Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org http://www.vinylinfo.org http://www.vinylindesign.com(See attached file: VI Letter to EPA Conveying PVC MACT Resin Test Concentrations 9 16 10.pdf)(See attached file: Industry Wide Concentration Data Aggregation 09 16 10.xls)