alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0079 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BETHANY LYNN LEX,

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 December 11 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 2 2023

11/02/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0079
# C_2008323EN.01000702.xml

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5361 — Bank of America/Merrill Lynch)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 323/04)

On 4 December 2008, 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:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5361. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5361. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7664
WINSTON LLOYD, Petitioner - Appellant, versusEARL BESHEARS, Warden, E.C.I.; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-3562-S) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 26, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winston Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lloyd v. Beshears , No. CA-97-3562-S (D. Md. Nov. 5, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion to supplement the evidence. We dispense withoral 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
Case: 2:13-cv-00071-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/23/14 Page: 1 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00071-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/23/14 Page: 2 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00071-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/23/14 Page: 3 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00071-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/23/14 Page: 4 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00071-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/23/14 Page: 5 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00071-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/23/14 Page: 6 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00071-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/23/14 Page: 7 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00071-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/23/14 Page: 8 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00071-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/23/14 Page: 9 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T19:50:10-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Torotel, Inc. and Subsidiaries contained in its
quarterly report off Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended January 31,
2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         121,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  809,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    61,000
<INVENTORY>                                    216,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               673,000
<PP&E>                                       1,792,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,548,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,546,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,560,000
<BONDS>                                      1,405,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,448,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,546,000
<SALES>                                      2,485,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,485,000
<CGS>                                        1,767,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,485,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (27,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (56,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (56,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (56,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)



</TABLE>
# C_2008121EN.01000601.xml

| 17.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/6

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.4919 — Statoil/Conocophillips)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 121/04)

On 13 May 2008, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4919 — Statoil/Conocophillips, to the following address:

| Commission of the European Communities |
| --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70 |
| B-1000 Brussels |

Commission of the European Communities

Competition DG

Merger Registry

Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70

B-1000 Brussels

---
No. 53178.

#### Joseph S. Finch & Co. and Schenley Distributors, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 137850-K and 115872-K (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols*& *Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                RULE 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of NYFIX,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  period  ending  March 31,  2005 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Mark R. Hahn,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, that:

   (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/ Mark R. Hahn
----------------------------------------------
Mark R. Hahn
Chief Financial Officer
June 29, 2005

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

This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```
From: "Lacey, Pam" <PLacey@aga.org> 

To: Roger Fernandez/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: "Israni, Mike" <mike.israni@DOT.GOV>, <roger.little@rspa.dot.gov> 

Date: 06/10/2010 01:27 PM 

Subject: RE: Follow up to June 3 Email 

Roger, 

Please forgive the delay. We have been working hard to get you this information while 

also working on our written comments. I believe you will find the attached description, 

web links, chart and copies of excerpts from the industry standard GPTC Guide helpful in 

answering your questions about current federal and state leak survey requirements. 

 

In addition, here are two excellent contacts at DOT PHMSA. We have contacted them 

and they are expecting your call. 

 Mike Israni 

Senior Technical Advisor 

(202)366-4571 

mike.israni@dot.gov 

 

Roger Little 

Manager, Information Technology and Analysis 

(202)366-4569 

roger.little@rspa.dot.gov 

 

Both of these contacts will be able to provide a great deal of detail regarding what 

operators are currently required to do regarding leak surveys, leak management and 

annual reporting. 

 

Thank you for your patience. 

 
Best regards, 

 

Pam 

 

 

 

 - Existing Regs on Leak Reporting.pdf - Current Leak Inspection Repair Regulations 

(2).doc - ANSI GPTC Z380 1 - 2009 - Cover and Table of Contents.pdf - Pages from 

ANSI GPTC Z380 1 - 2009 with Addenda 1-2 (no cover art) pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional.pdf
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

 42

 44

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 2000

 500

18 12 06 00

08/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 1 2

- 00 532

- CR

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS, EX. REL. SUSAN D. REED,

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BEXAR COUNTY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion , Justice

Steven C. Hilbig , Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 19, 2012

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED AS MOOT

On August 21, 2012 , relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus , complaining of the

trial court’s June 5, 2012 order granting Jason Hoffman’s motion for early disenrollment of sex

offender registration

. However, on September 10, 2012 the trial court signed an order rescinding

the order granting the motion for early disenrollment of sex offender registration

. Accordingly,

the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED AS MOOT

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

P ER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No . 2002

- CR

- 6767

, State of Texas v. Jason R. Hoffman

, in the 144th Judicial

District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angus K. McGinty p residing.
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Michael
R. Mulcahy, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Trans-Lux Corporation,
do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:

    (1) The Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2007 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

    This Certification accompanies this Form 10-Q as an exhibit, but shall not
be deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Registrant or
the certifying officer.



                                       /s/ Michael R. Mulcahy
                                       ----------------------------------------
Date:  May 18, 2007                    Michael R. Mulcahy
                                       President and Co-Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 61 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 61

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in recognition of the historic contributions of Rosa Parks, her 
remains be permitted to lie in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol from 
October 30 to October 31, 2005, so that the citizens of the United 
States may pay their last respects to this great American. The 
Architect of the Capitol, under the direction and supervision of the 
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, shall take all necessary steps for the accomplishment 
of that purpose.

            Passed the Senate October 27, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 61

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the remains of Rosa Parks to lie in honor in the rotunda of 
                              the Capitol.
```
No. 54226.

#### Wilson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 154582-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
No. 56127.

protests 128291-K, etc. (New York).

#### James M. McCunn & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
A03A0797.

#### PERSON v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

(580 SE2d 649)

Johnson, Presiding Judge.

On February 5, 2002, the state filed a complaint for forfeiture against Tommy Person under OCGA § 16-13-49. On March 15, 2002, Person filed a verified answer to the complaint. Because the answer was not in compliance with OCGA § 16-13-49 (o), the state filed a motion to dismiss the answer. On April 5, 2002, Person filed an amended answer. However, this amended answer was not verified. On June 18, 2002, the state filed an amended motion to dismiss Person’s answer and amended answer. The trial court granted this motion on July 29, 2002. On August 1, 2002, Person filed a motion to reconsider, contending he had, indeed, filed a verification to his amended answer. The verification shows that it was filed in the superior court on July 2, 2002. Prior to a ruling on his motion for reconsideration, Person filed the instant appeal. He contends the trial court erred in ruling that he failed to file a verified answer.

*645Decided March 27, 2003.

*Reza Sedghi,*for appellant.

*Howard Z. Simms, District Attorney, Kirby H. Wincey, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

1. We must first address the state’s contention that this case is not properly before us because Person’s motion for reconsideration remains pending in the trial court. This contention lacks merit. It is well established that a motion for reconsideration does not block this Court’s jurisdiction over a notice of appeal regarding the efficacy of the order underlying the motion for reconsideration.1

2. Person argues that the trial court erred in finding that he did not verify his amended answer when the record shows that a verification was, in fact, filed prior to the court’s ruling. We agree. It is well settled that the failure to verify a pleading is an amendable defect.2 Here, the trial court’s order specifically notes that there is a question regarding whether Person’s amendment to his original answer cured the shortcomings of his original answer. However, the court did not address this issue because it found that Person failed to verify his amended answer. Since the record clearly shows that Person had, in fact, filed a verification to his amended answer prior to the court’s ruling, we must reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand this case for the trial court to consider the issue of whether Person’s verified amended answer cured the shortcomings of his original answer.

*Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.*

*Eldridge and Mikell, JJ, concur.*

1

*Threatt v. Forsyth County,*250 Ga. App. 838, 844 (2) (552 SE2d 123) (2001); *Westbury Square Townhouses Assn. v. Bryan,*223 Ga. App. 885, 887 (1) (479 SE2d 190) (1996) (physical precedent only).

2

*Janet Ricker Builder, Inc. v. Gardner,*244 Ga. App. 753, 755 (1) (536 SE2d 777) (2000).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN OHIO DISTRICT

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. CR-2-13-262

 JUDGE GREGORY FROST

RICHARD M. SPRIGGS, JR.,

Defendant.

ORDER REVOKING SUPERVISED RELEASE AND IMPOSING SENTENCE

This matter came on for a hearing this 28th day of September, 2015 upon the Petition to

Revoke the Defendant’s Supervised Release Status. Defendant, Counsel for Defendant, and

Counsel for the Government appeared.

At the hearing, Defendant admitted to violating:

Standard Condition No. 5: “The defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation

unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other

acceptable reasons.”

Standard Condition No. 7: “The defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and

shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any narcotic or other

controlled substance, or any paraphernalia related to such substances, except

prescribed by a physician.”

The Court accepted the admissions.

The Court thereafter proceeded with sentencing. Pursuant to the United States

1

Case: 2:13-cr-00262-GLF Doc #: 45 Filed: 09/28/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) 7B1.1(a)(2), Defendant has been found guilty of violating two

Standard Conditions of Supervised Release, which conduct represents Grade C violations. 

Based on a Grade C violation and criminal history category I, the advisory guideline

imprisonment range for revocation purposes is 5 to 11 months. See U.S.S.G. 7B1.4(a).

Relying upon the foregoing, the facts of this case, and the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, the

Court modifies Defendant’s conditions of Supervised Release as follows:

Defendant shall participate in home detention component of location monitoring program

for a period of three (3) months. Defendant shall remain in his residence unless he is given

permission in advance by the probation officer for approved activities. Defendant shall abide by

all requirement established by the probation office related to the use of location monitoring

technology. Defendant shall pay part or all of the cost of the location monitoring based on his

ability to pay as determined by the probation officer.

All other terms and conditions of Supervised Release shall remain in effect.

After sentencing, the Defendant acknowledged his rights on appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

Case: 2:13-cr-00262-GLF Doc #: 45 Filed: 09/28/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>