alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DA 07-0561

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2009 MT 77N

LAURENCE GILLISPIE, d/b/a

EAGLE CREST ELECTRIC,

Licensed Master Electrician,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR AND INDUSTRY, and

STATE ELECTRICAL BOARD,

Respondents and Appellees.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DV 2007-203

Honorable Robert L. Deschamps, III, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Raymond P. Tipp, Torrance L. Coburn, Tipp & Buley, Missoula, Montana

For Appellees:

Arthur M. Gorov; Helena, Special Assistant Attorney General, Helena,

Montana

Submitted on Briefs: July 2, 2008

Decided: March 17, 2009

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

March 17 2009
2

Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal

Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed

as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and its case title, Supreme

Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of

noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2 Laurence Gillispie appeals from a judgment of the Fourth Judicial District Court,

Missoula County, affirming the State Electrical Board’s adoption of a decision of a

hearing officer to suspend Gillispie’s master electrician license and the license for his

business, Eagle Crest Electric, for two years. We affirm.

¶3 The issues are whether the District Court erred in concluding the Board did not

violate Gillispie’s right to due process of law by relying on a hearing officer to conduct

his contested case hearing, and in reviewing the Board’s decision based on an incomplete

administrative record.

¶4 Gillispie’s argument that his due process rights were violated is based upon

statutory language in § 37-1-131, MCA, which requires administrative boards to “sit in

judgment” in a hearing for suspension of a professional license. “[D]ue process is

flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.”

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 2600 (1972). Gillispie has not

convinced us that the use of a hearing officer as was done in this case, in which the Board

retained ultimate decision-making authority, violated his due process rights as fleshed out

by the statutory “sit in judgment” provision.
3

¶5 In relation to transmission of the administrative record, the District Court ruled

that, although the Department of Labor and Industry had initially failed to transmit the

entire administrative record, “[u]ltimately a sufficient record was transmitted to allow

[the District Court] to make the limited review of the administrative proceedings

mandated by § 2-4-704(2), MCA.” After reviewing the record, we agree.

¶6 Affirmed.

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

We Concur:

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

/S/ JOHN WARNER

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
Order filed April 12 , 202 2

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 21
- 005 29
- CR NO. 14
- 21
- 005 30
- CR

____________ EX PARTE AMY AMANDA REGALADO
On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 2 1
- DCR
- 096266 & 21
- DCR
- 096265



### ORDER In each of these cases, a ppellant is appealing the den ial of an application for a writ of habeas c orpus. On September 28, 20 2 1 , the trial court clerk filed the clerk’s record in each of these c ases. The record s do not c on tain a certification of appellant’s right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)( 2), 3 4.5(a) (12); see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

. An appeal must be dism issed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right o f appeal has not been made part of the record. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); Dears , 15 4 S.W .3d at 613. Rule 25 .2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure instructsthe trial court to enter a cer ti ficate of the defendant ’ s right of appeal each time it

e nt ers a judgment of gui lt or other appealable order

. Tex. R. Ap p. P. 25. 2(a)(2) (em phasi s adde d). This includes the entry of an order on a defen d ant ’ s application for writ of ha beas c orpus. See Ex parte Vazquez , No. 3

- 19

- 00885

- CR, 2019 WL 6972681 (Tex. App

. — Austin Dec. 20, 2019, no pet.) (order ). On November 2, 2021 , we order ed the trial court to execu te a ce rtifi cation of appellant’ s right to appeal and dire ct the trial court clerk to prepare and file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certificati on wit h this court on or bef ore December 2, 2021

. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2), 37.1, 44.4; Vazq uez , 2 019 WL 6972681 at * 1. Two notices have been delivered informing the trial court the requested records have not been filed wit h the clerk of this court. As of this date, no records have not been received. Accordingly, for each case we order the trial court to execute a certification of appellant’s right to appeal and direct the trial court clerk to prepare and file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification with this court on or before May 12 , 202 2

. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2), 37.1, 44.4; Vazquez , 2019 WL 6972681 at *1.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Poissant and Wilson

.
STIPULATION TO MANUALLY FILE EVIDENCE SFO 267777v1 67507-1 

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

E

r

r

o

r! U

n

k

n

o

w

n

d

o

c

u

m

e

nt p

r

o

p

e

rty

n

a

m

e.

THOMAS R. BURKE (State Bar No. 141930) 

DUFFY CAROLAN (State Bar No. 154988)

Error! Unknown document property name.

One Embarcadero Center, Suite 600 

San Francisco, California 94111-3611 

Telephone: (415) 276-6500 

Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 

MEREDITH FUCHS 

Appearing Pro Hac Vice

The National Security Archive 

The George Washington University 

Gelman Library, Suite 170, 2130 H Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20037 

Telephone: (202) 994-7000 

Facsimile: (202) 994-7005 

Attorneys for Plaintiff LARRY BERMAN 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LARRY BERMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civ. S-04-2699 DFC-DAD 

STIPULATION TO MANUALLY FILE 

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFF LARRY BERMAN’S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

AND IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO 

CIA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Date: June 1, 2005 

Courtroom: 7 (Hon. David F. Levi) 

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-133(b), Plaintiff Larry Berman and Defendant Central Intelligence 

Agency, through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate that given the volume of 

evidence to be presented by Plaintiff Larry Berman, which will be over 200 pages, in support of 

his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to CIA’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, Plaintiff’s evidence may be served and filed in paper form via FedEx on May 2, 2005. 

DATED: April 25, 2005 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

By: /s/

THOMAS R. BURKE 

DUFFY CAROLAN 

Attorneys for Plaintiff LARRY BERMAN 

Case 2:04-cv-02699-DFL-DAD Document 18 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 3
1 

STIPULATION TO MANUALLY FILE EVIDENCE SFO 267777v1 67507-1 

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

E

r

r

o

r! U

n

k

n

o

w

n

d

o

c

u

m

e

nt p

r

o

p

e

rty

n

a

m

e.

By: /s/

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT, U.S. Attorney 

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL, Assistant U.S. 

Attorney 

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO, Assistant Director 

CAROLINE LEWIS WOLVERTON, Trial 

Attorney 

Attorneys for Defendant CENTRAL 

INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 

Case 2:04-cv-02699-DFL-DAD Document 18 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 3
2 

STIPULATION TO MANUALLY FILE EVIDENCE SFO 267777v1 67507-1 

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

E

r

r

o

r! U

n

k

n

o

w

n

d

o

c

u

m

e

nt p

r

o

p

e

rty

n

a

m

e.

ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: April 26, 2005: ____/s/ David F. Levi_______________ 

DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-02699-DFL-DAD Document 18 Filed 04/27/05 Page 3 of 3
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated July 26, 2006, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on August 2, 2006, (71 FR 43814-43815), Siegfried (USA), Inc., Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
ScheduleAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIAmobarbital (2125)
IIPentobarbital (2270)
IISecobarbital (2315)
IIGlutethimide (2550)
IICodeine (9050)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMethadone intermediate (9254)
IIDextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms) (9273)
IIMorphine (9300)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. Siegfried (USA) Inc.'s application for renewal requested that DEA add Hydromorphone (9150) to its registration. DEA is reviewing this request. DEA's granting of Siegfried (USA) Inc.'s application for renewal does not include the authority to handle Hydromorphone (9150). When DEA has completed its review of the firm's request to add Hydromorphone (9150) to its registration, DEA will publish its decision in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Siegfried (USA), Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Siegfried (USA), Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: March 9, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E7-4825 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
II 

Calendar No. 640 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5005 

To authorize additional funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration 

Settlement Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 

Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mr. HOEVEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported by Mr. MANCHIN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To authorize additional funding for the San Joaquin River 

Restoration Settlement Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN 

4 RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ACT. 

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO IMPLE6 MENT SETTLEMENT.—Section 10009 of the San Joaquin 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5005 RS

1 River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111–11; 

2 123 Stat. 1355) is amended— 

3 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking 

4 ‘‘$250,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$750,000,000’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking 

6 ‘‘$250,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$750,000,000’’. 

7 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR

8 FRIANT DIVISION IMPROVEMENTS.—Section 10203(c) of 

9 the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub10 lic Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1367) is amended by striking 

11 ‘‘$50,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$75,000,000’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 640 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5005 

A BILL 

Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. 

To authorize additional funding for the San 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of the Report, Grand Jury Exhibit 83A of the September/October 1993 Suffolk County Grand Jury IC, Term X.

[634 NYS2d 134]

—Motion by the respondent Officer C., on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 7, 1994, *inter alia,*to preclude oral argument of the appeal.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and the opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is denied *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.19). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

_________________________

No. 06-12-00047-CR

______________________________

RONNIE RAY DUGAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-11-23960

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ronnie Ray Dugan, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal. 

The motion is signed by Dugan and by his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2, we 

grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: September 6, 2012

Date Decided: September 7, 2012

Do Not Publish
#### BRANN & STUART COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. INTERSTATE STORAGE & PIPELINE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Mr. Sido L. Bidolfi*and *Mr. David A. Friedman*for the petitioner.

March 26, 1962.
No. 61908.

#### Stern & Stern Textiles, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 276587-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 368, C. D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of NNN Realty Investors, LLC, the Manager of NNN 2003 Value Fund, LLC (the Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                |  |  |  |     |  |                                        
|--------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------
|                |  |  | 
|August 10, 2012 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ TODD A. MIKLES                     
|Date            |  |  |  |     |  | Todd A. Mikles                         
|                |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer  
|                |  |  |  |     |  | NNN Realty Investors, LLC,             
|                |  |  |  |     |  | the Manager of NNN 2003 Value Fund, LLC
|                |  |  |  |     |  | (principal executive officer)
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alamosa (Delaware), Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Sharbutt, as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 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, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



    /s/ David Sharbutt
---------------------------------------------
Name:   David Sharbutt
Title:  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Date:   March 28, 2003



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Alamosa (Delaware), Inc. and will be retained by Alamosa (Delaware),
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
(Reap. Dec. 10115)

#### World Wide Services, Inc., a/c Fadex Commercial Corp. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 451061; 452404.

(Decided December 7, 1961)

*William Whynman*for tbe plaintiff.

*William B. OrrioJc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in the schedule of reappraisements attached to this decision and made a part hereof have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between tbe parties hereto through their respective attorneys, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

> 1. That the imported merchandise consists of automobiles, manufactured in and exported from Germany on the dates herein relevant, and described on the invoices as U.S. Isetta or Isetta 300, 1 tone (one color) and 2 tones (2 colors), and also U.S. Isetta 600 or BMW Isetta 600, 1 tone (one color) and 2 tones (2 colors) together with accessories and spare parts.

> 2. That on the relevant dates of exportation, there was no foreign, export, or U.S. value, as each of such values is defined in Section 402 (c), (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for the imported merchandise above described.

> 3. That on the relevant dates of exportation, the proper basis of value of the automobiles above described was the cost of production, as such value is defined in Section 402(f) of said Tariff Act, and as stated in Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof.

> 4. That as to the accessories not already included in the cost figures shown in the said schedule and separately appraised, the proper basis of value is the cost of production, which is equal to the value stated on the invoice.

> 5. That the proper basis of value of the imported spare parts is the cost of production, as defined in Section 402 (f), which is as follows:

> Those marked in green ink with the letter “G” are equal to the appraised value.

> Those marked in green ink with the letter “E” are equal to the invoice! value.

> Those marked in green ink with the letter “D” are equal to the invoice value less 6%.

> The said appeals are submitted herewith for decision upon this stipulation and are abandoned as to all items not included and referred to above.

Upon tbe agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 4930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for *535the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeals and that such values were as follows:

1. For the automobiles covered by said appeals, the values stated in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof.

2. For the accessories not already • included in the cost figures shown in the said schedule and separately appraised, the values stated on the invoices.

3. For the spare parts, marked in green ink with the letter “G,” the appraised values; and for those marked in green ink with the letter “F,” the invoice values.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.