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

DA 21-0407

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

A.M.G. and S.M.H.,

 Youths in Need of Care.

O R D E R

_________________

Appellant seeks a second thirty-day extension of time within which to submit a reply 

brief. Counsel for Appellant acknowledges this Court’s March 30, 2022 Order stating that 

further extensions would not be permitted but explains why additional time is needed in 

this case. Counsel advises that the State has been contacted and does not oppose the 

request.

Upon review of counsel’s affidavit, the Court finds good cause for the requested 

extension. Given the nature of the case, however, and the Court’s practice to expedite the 

submission of dependent-neglect cases, the Court will not permit additional extensions of 

time. If the brief is not filed on or before the extended due date, the case will be submitted 

on the opening brief and the State’s response. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant is granted to and including June 1, 

2022, within which to file a reply brief in this matter.

Electronically signed by:

Beth Baker

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 4 2022

05/04/2022
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2016, by and amongMorgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as SpecialServicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee and Park Bridge LenderServices LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-C29 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthe Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from May 1, 2016 through December 31,2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
U.S. Ilep nt of Energy

I Energy Efficiency a Renewable Energy

EERE Home

Search H elp More Search Options 2

EERE Information Center

Appliances Home

About Standards

Latins & Regulations

EPACT 2005 Test

Procedures

Information Resources

Notices & Rules

Priority Setting

2006 Schedule Setting

Public Workshops &

Hearings

State Petitions

Useful Links

Commercial Equipment

Residential Products

Residential Water Heaters,

Direct Heating Equipment, and

Pool Heaters Public Meeting

DATE : January 16, 2007

TIME: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EDT

LOCATION : U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence

Avenue, SW

Room 1E-245

Washington, DC 20585

The Department of Energy (the Department) is proposing to

amend its test procedure for residential water heaters, direct

heating equipment and pool heaters. The Department will hold an

informal public meeting to presents its proposed methodologies

for conducting this rulemaking, discuss issues relevant to the

rulemaking proceeding, and initiate stakeholder interaction and

the data collection process. DOE is also interested in identifying

information that will assist in establishing amended standards for

these products.

The Department will accept comments, data, and information

related to this rulemaking before and after the meeting, but no

later than January 30, 2007.

Meeting Material

Notice of public meeting and availability of Framework

Document, Federal Register, November 24, 2006 (PDF 60

KB) Download Adobe Reader.

• Agenda (MS Word 36 KB)

• Meeting Presentation Material (PDF 399 KB)

To Submit Comments

You may submit comments electronically, by hand delivery, by

mail, or by courier until January 30, 2007 . Wherever possible,

comments in the electronic format should carry the electronic

signature of the author. Absent an electronic signature,

comments submitted electronically must be followed and

authenticated by submitting a signed original paper document.

Comments should be submitted with reference to the docket

number EE-2006-STD-0129 and/or RIN number 1904-AA90

by the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal, directions for submitting

comments are on the website.

• E-mail: ResWaterDlrectPoolHtrs@ee.doe.gov, please

 EE-2006-STD-0129 COMMENT 02.4
include EE-2006-STD-0129 and/or RIN number 1904-

AA90 in the subject line of the message.

Regular Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier:

Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program

Mailstop: EE-2J, Room 1J-018

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585-0121

Please visit the Residential Water Heaters or Pool Heaters

webpages for further information related to energy conservation

standards for these products.

Printable Version

Webmaster I Security & Privacy I BuildingTech nologies Program Horne I EERE Home

U.S. Department of Energy

Content Last Updated: 01/11/2007

 EE-2006-STD-0129 COMMENT 02.4
# C_2017392EN.01002901.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/29

---

Order of the General Court of 25 September 2017 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-542/15) (1)

1

((ERDF - Operational Programme ‘Transport’ and Regional Operational Programmes for Central Hungary, West Pannon, South Great Plain, Central Transdanubia, North Hungary, North Great Plain and South Transdanubia - Decision to suspend the interim payments - Repeal of the contested act - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 392/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: J. Bonhage and F. Quast, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 4979 final of 14 July 2015 on the suspension of part of the interim payments from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund for the expenditure paid for the Operational Programme ‘Transport’ for the regions of Central Hungary, West Pannon, South Great Plain, Central Transdanubia, North Hungary, North Great Plain and South Transdanubia

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Hungary is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hungary is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

1

---
EPATOWN HALL MEETING. July30, 2014 My name is Katherine Mitchell; Iam from Atlanta, Ga. It is imperativethat we combat climate change, which is a reality, and control emissions from current power plants. The EPA needs much more stringent regulations. We must reduce emissions from electrical power, which comprise nearly 40% of the country's emissions. If we do not combat global warming, it will have cataclysmic effects. It will ricochet through the economy, forthe long term as well as shortterm; it will effect our health and well-being, our air quality, ourfood supply, our way of life. The battle against climate change is a battle we can win, but not if we continue to delay. We need clean, renewable sources of energy. The technologies exist; they must be implemented. I respectfully request that the EPA make four major changes to the proposed rule. First, there should be more stringent emission reductions, particularlyfrom coal-fired plants. Second, in addition to being more strict, the implementation ofthese regulations should be sooner. Time is ofthe essence in this struggle. Third, it is a mistake to encourage the use of natural gas as more than a transitional fuel as we convertto clean sustainable energy sources. Natural gas is not a clean fuel; it does release methane into the environment. Ourtime and effort should go into the developmentof sustainable, non-fossil sources like solar. Fourth, I request thatthe EPA encourage all states heavily reliant on coal (such as Georgia) to increase the proportion of energyfrom renewable sources such as solar and wind. Iam aware that Nuclear energy also brings with it significant problems. Not least is that there is no known way to safely dispose of spentfuel rods. These highly radioactive rods will present major problems for future generations. Iwould also preferthat we move awayfrom the mining of uranium.In the past, the world hasoften looked to the USAfor leadership. We have achance to be leaders in the move to clean, sustainable energy. There is no downside to our making these changes. Ourfuture hangs in the balance. Thank you for your consideration of mycomments.

Katherine Mitchell I , '\ ( 

## i

. ' I

.



### ~- -{ 

# I. 1 ••

# c I\) \ )

# l<

**~-** 

### L\f \ \ 

# ·<\.. \ I-

## !.\ ' l /" _;__
No. 46943.

#### Protests 74155-K, etc., of Winsor & Newton, Inc. (New York).

*466Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the containers in question are the same as those the subject of Abstract 46411 they were held dutiable as containers not specially provided for, not plated, at *22}{*percent under paragraph 397 by virtue of the British Trade Agreement (T. D. 49753).
No. 65719.

#### A. L. Erlanger Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 253688-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon filaments similar in use to thrown silk not more advanced than singles, tram, or organzine and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2015171EN.01001301.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2015 — Firma Theodor Pfister v Landkreis Main-Spessart

(Case C-58/15)

(2015/C 171/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma Theodor Pfister

Applicant:

Defendant: Landkreis Main-Spessart

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

| — | Does the second sentence of Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 permit, for the transitional period of 2007, the imposition of meat inspection fees to cover costs under the previous legal provisions (Directive 85/73/EEC in the version of Directive 96/43/EC)? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the second sentence of Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 permit, for the transitional period of 2007, the imposition of meat inspection fees to cover costs under the previous legal provisions (Directive 85/73/EEC in the version of Directive 96/43/EC)?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1).

1

---
Before the Second Division,

December 10, 1951

No. 56156.

petition 6840-R (New York).

#### International Packers Commercial Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The petition was dismissed.
# C_2015311EN.01002901.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 July 2015 — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB

(Case C-336/15)

(2015/C 311/34)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Arbetsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unionen

Applicant:

Defendants: Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Is it compatible with the Transfer of Undertakings Directive (1), after a year has elapsed following the transfer of an undertaking, on application of a provision in the transferee’s collective agreement which means that, where a certain contiguous length of service with a single employer is a condition for an extended notice period to be granted, not to take account of the length of service with the transferor, when the employees, under an identical provision in the collective agreement which applied to the transferor, had the right to have that length of service taken into account?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

1

---
# C_2019246EN.01001901.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/19

---

Order of the General Court of 15 May 2019 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

(Case T-269/15) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra - tobramycine - Withdrawal of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 246/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová, A. Sipos and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Pari Pharma GmbH (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Epping and W. Rehmann, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 1977 final of 18 March 2015 granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use Vantobra — tobramycine, in accordance with Regulation No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council,

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | Novartis Europharm Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Novartis Europharm Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | Pari Pharma GmbH shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Pari Pharma GmbH shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

---
No. 49404.

#### Protests 94131-K, etc., of Philip Barnet & Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the hides in question are similar to those involved in *Rice*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 118, C. D. 807) which were assessed at 15 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1530 (b) (4), Tariff Act of 1930. In accordance therewith those hides entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse prior to the effective date of said trade agreement were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1530 (a), and those on or subsequent to said date were held dutiable at 5 percent under paragraph 1530 (a) as modified by said trade agreement.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         842,782
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,666,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                   145,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,111,057
<PP&E>                                      23,834,056
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,489,140
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,430,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,821,879
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,126,655
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,652,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,430,969
<SALES>                                      4,877,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,877,556
<CGS>                                        3,207,127
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,290,127
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             137,351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (494,517)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (507,517)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (507,517)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
H. Con. Res. 124 Agreed to May 8, 2007

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order 

of Police and its auxiliary (in this resolution referred to as the 

‘‘sponsor’’) shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the 26th 

annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service (in this resolution 

referred to as the ‘‘event’’), on the Capitol Grounds, in order to 

honor the law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty 

during 2006. 

(b) DATE OF EVENT.—The event shall be held on May 15, 

2007, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of 

the Senate jointly designate. 

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed by the 

Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event 

shall be—

(1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and 

(2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress. 

(b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall assume full 

responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all activities 

associated with the event. 

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS. 

Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 

sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, 

sound amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment, as may be required for the event. 

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 

restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 

Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations 
H. Con. Res. 124—2

on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable 

to the Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event. 

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
#### Levant *versus*Varney, *Appellant.*

The seventh section of the Act of 1846, for restricting the sale of intoxicating drinks, requires the defendant, appellant, to “ advance the jury fee and all other fees that may arise after the appeal.” By the “ other fees” there spoken of, are intended only such fees as arise for the services of the clerk of the court.

Action of debt for violation of the Act of August 7, 1846, “to restrict the sale of intoxicating drinks.” By the seventh section it is enacted that a defendant, appealing from the judgment of a justice of the peace, *“*shall be held to advance the jury fees and all other fees that may arise after the appeal.”

The defendant having taken such an appeal, and entered it in the District Court, was there ordered, on motion of the plaintiff, to advance the fees for the plaintiff’s witnesses. Upon his refusal to do so, it was then ordered, that the justice’s judgment be affirmed. To those orders, exceptions were taken. And the exceptions were sustained; the court observing, that the only fees which the defendant was bound to advance, were the 'jury fee and such fees as arise for the clerk.
# C_2016364EN.01005601.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/56

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Trampuz v Commission

(Case F-103/15) (1)

((Civil service - Social security - Sickness insurance scheme - Recovery of advance payment of medical expenses - Implementation of an annulment judgment of the General Court - Plea of inadmissibility - Failure to satisfy the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Act adversely affecting an official - Pension statement - Requirement to make a claim - Out of time - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 364/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Serena Trampuz (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: C. Falagiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to withhold the sum of EUR 14 207,60 from the applicant’s pension by way of recovery of advances made in the direct billing of accommodation costs during the hospitalisation of the applicant’s spouse after the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision of the Ispra claims office, making the applicant responsible for payment of all the accommodation costs of the hospitalisation which were considered excessive.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Ms Serena Trampuz shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Serena Trampuz shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015, p. 55.

---