alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0200 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. TIMOTHY GALE MUNYAN,

Defendant and Appellant. JUN 2 8 2022 BUNN,: ivVOUCI Clerk ot Court State of Montana ORDER

Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 16(5), the parties in this matter have stipulated and move for an order remanding this proceeding to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, and dismissing the remainder ofthis appeal with prejudice. Theparties agreethat at sentencing, theDistrictCourt struck paragraph 13(b) ofthe presentence investigation report, which recommended a $500 surcharge under § 46-18- 236(1)(b), MCA. However, the writtenjudgment includes a $20 surcharge under §46-18- 236(1)(b), MCA. The parties agree that it is in the best interests ofjustice and efficiency for this Court to remand this matter to the District Court to strike this surcharge from the writtenjudgment. Appellant Timothy Gale Munyan has agreed to dismiss the remainder ofthis appeal with prejudice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for entry of an amended judgment and sentence. The court is directed to STRIKE the $20 surcharge under § 46-18-236(1)(b), MCA, from the written judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rernainder of this appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 06/28/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0200The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord, to the

Clerk ofCourt for Lincoln County, and to the Honorable Matthew Cuffe, presidingDistrict Judge.Dated thisZ day ofJune, 2022.

ChiefJustice

s. jr:/% 44 

# ( 2"4 1a)

stices

2
From: Higgins, Cortney 

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:32 AM 

To: Wayland, Robertj 

Cc: Culligan, Kevin 

Subject: RE: First Round of Interagency Comments -- COMMENTS FROM THE WEEKEND - 

NOTHING ON CHAPTER 5 (BB4) OF ABATEMENT TSD???? 

It’s on Page 3, 2nd last paragraph, just after (HVAC), adding the words “and heat pump systems” , 

with a comment: 

 

Suggesting this as a means to clarify if, indeed, heat pumps are considered EE, as these would indeed 

be a substantial EE contribution for both residential and business use. 

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Culligan, Kevin 

Subject: FW: First Round of Interagency Comments -- COMMENTS FROM THE WEEKEND - 

NOTHING ON CHAPTER 5 (BB4) OF ABATEMENT TSD???? 

Importance: High 

Did we get the right version of Chapter 5 – Joe says there are not comments on BB4/Chapter 5. 

Not asking for more comments ... just want to make sure we address everything you’ve flagged. 

thanx! 

bob 

 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Mail Code D243-01 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Office: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

 

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

 

************************************* 

 DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA Exempt 

*************************************
#### Curvin J. TRONE, Jr., Trustee for Westgate California Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. C. Arnholt SMITH et al., Defendants-Petitioners.

No. 77-8116.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 10, 1977.

Alan D. Croll, Alan C. Lebow, Wyman, Bautzer, Rothman & Kuchel, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-respondents.

Thomas R. Sheridan, Simon & Sheridan, Mitchell L. Lathrop, Thomas S. Kidde, Kenneth A. Braun, Macdonald, Halsted & Laybourne, Los Angeles, Cal., Robert G. Steiner, Michael J. Weaver, Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, San Diego, Cal., for defendants-petitioners.

Before BROWNING and TRASK, Circuit Judges.

Despite the implications in *Cord v. Smith,*338 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1964), we conclude that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is not the proper avenue by which to obtain review of the district court’s denial of a motion to disqualify an attorney for conflict of interest. *See Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.,*496 F.2d 800 (2d Cir. 1974) (in banc). *See also Melamed v. ITT Continental Baking Co.,*534 F.2d 82 (6th Cir. 1976); *Draganescu v. First National Bank of Hollywood,*502 F.2d 550 (5th Cir. 1974). We therefore deny permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The accompanying motion for a stay of further proceedings is denied without prejudice.
January 12, 2001

No. 00-46.

#### Murphy *v.*Beck, Successor Agent for Southeast Bank, N. A.

C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 530 U. S. 1306.] Writ of certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment Outlook in Electronics Manufacturing

              																	Pettingill, Stuart Anderson					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Employment Outlook in Electronics Manufacturing : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1072*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1952,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4434,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,801,756
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,216,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (420,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 10,990,262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,325,851
<PP&E>                                      11,972,780
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,278,944
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,508,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,973,517
<BONDS>                                      3,909,284
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,620
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,445,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,508,829
<SALES>                                     69,273,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            69,273,411
<CGS>                                       32,562,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,562,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            32,396,701
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (199,443)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (340,324)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,029,178
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,266,286
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,762,892
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31


</TABLE>
#### George ELROD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-398.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Oct. 14, 1969.

Brian T. Hayes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Horace A. Knowlton, III., Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, *214and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24826]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


Legend Sports, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

September 15, 1997.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Legend Sports, Inc. (``Legends'') because of questions regarding, among 
other things, the current financial condition of Legends.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed 
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m., EDT, September 15, 
1997 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on September 26, 1997.

    By the Commission.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24826 Filed 9-15-97; 12:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2082 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2082

To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions 
of that Act and the lone wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform and 
          Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to March 31, 2006.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 12, 2005

  Mr. Sununu (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Craig, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. 
 Murkowski, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. 
   Salazar) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions 
of that Act and the lone wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform and 
          Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to March 31, 2006.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSET OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE USA PATRIOT 
              ACT AND THE LONE WOLF PROVISION OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
              REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004.

    Section 224(a) of the Uniting and Strengthening America by 
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct 
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56; 115 Stat. 
295) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2005'' and inserting ``March 
31, 2006''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1004-1005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-240]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application to Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Biovail Corporation International, Common Stock, 
$0.01 Par Value) File No. 1-11145

December 31, 1996.
    Biovail Corporation International (``Company'') has filed an 
application with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to 
withdraw the above specified security (``Security'') from listing and 
registration on the American Stock Exchange, Inc. (``AMEX'').
    The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing the Security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    According to the Company, it has complied with Rule 18 of the AMEX 
by filing with the AMEX a certified copy of preambles and resolutions 
adopted by the Company's Board of Directors authorizing the withdrawal 
of its security from listing on the Amex and by setting forth in detail 
the reasons for such proposed withdrawal, and the facts in support 
thereof. The Security of the Company has been listed for trading on the 
New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') effective December 11, 1996. 
In making the decision to withdraw the Security from listing on the 
AMEX, the Company considered the increase visibility of the Company's 
shares from being listed on the NYSE and the wishes of institutional 
shareholders.
    Any interested person may, on or before January 22, 1997, submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts bearing upon whether 
the application

[[Page 1005]]

has been made in accordance with the rules of the exchanges and what 
terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection 
of investors. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, 
will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned 
above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the 
matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-240 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Nancy Anne WHITMORE, Appellee.

No. 69-834.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 29, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
256 La. 76

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert Ernest GRAY.

No. 50583.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1970.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

The application is denied. The ruling complained of is correct.
ENCLOSURE 

Enclosure 

Freedom of Navigation (FON) FY 2005 Operational Assertions 

COUNTRY MARITIME CLAIM CHALLENGED 

Cambodia Excessive straight baselines: 24 nm 

security zone. 

Ecuador* Excessive claim of 200 nm territorial sea. 

Philippines* Excessive straight baselines: claims 

archipelagic waters as internal waters 

Indonesia* Archipelagic sea lanes passage. 

Iran* Restriction on right of passage through 

Straits of Hormuz to Law of the Sea 

Convention Signatories. 

Oman* Claim to recognize only the regime of 

innocent passage and not transit passage 

through Straits of Hormuz. 

Note: * Designates multiple FON operation challenges during FY 2005
#### Johnnie BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. K-172.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

May 6, 1969.

*270Joseph A. Scarlett, Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James Robert Yon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying the appellant’s motion to vacate sentence and set aside judgment, arising from Volu-sia County.

The appellant, who is the defendant below, was indicted and tried and convicted of rape along with the codefendant. The codefendant had privately employed counsel and prior to arraignment the appellant requested the court to appoint as his counsel the same lawyer representing the codefendant as private counsel. This was done and said defendant was so represented throughout the trial.

One of the major contentions of the appellant in his motion to vacate is that his constitutional rights were violated because the court appointed the same counsel to represent him that was representing the codefendant. This contention is without merit in view of the decision of this court in Rogers v. State, 212 So.2d 367 (Fla.App.1st, 1968) and Belton v. State, 211 So.2d 238 (Fla.App.3d, 1968) and the trial court committed no error in denying the motion on these grounds. However, the further contention of the appellant in said motion that he requested his court-appointed counsel to institute an appeal from his conviction and that the same was refused, contains sufficient merit to warrant an evidentiary hearing on this point alone.1

Inasmuch as the trial judge’s rulings on the contentions raised in said motion of the appellant are affirmed, with the exception of his contention that his court-appointed counsel refused to appeal his case, we are compelled to reverse for a hearing on this one contention.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith on authority of Coward v. State, 202 So.2d 778 (Fla.App.2d, 1967).

WIGGINTON, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.

1

. Hinton v. State, 177 So.2d 522 (Fla.App.2d 1965); Jackson v. State, 166 So.2d 194 (Fla.App.3d, 1964).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VICTOR RAMON LOVE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-00-31, CA-02-86-4-H)

Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Ramon Love, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Victor Ramon Love seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Love

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029

(U.S. Feb. 25, 2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)

(2000). 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Form S-8
Registration Statement File No. 33-93712, Form S-8 Registration Statement File
No. 33-93746, Form S-8 Registration Statement File No. 333-03460, Form S-8
Registration Statement File No. 333-03478, Form S-4 Registration Statement File
No. 333-00230, Form S-4 Registration Statement File No. 333-04406, Form S-4
Registration Statement File No. 333-09905, Form S-3 Registration Statement File
No. 333-10531, Form S-3 Registration Statement File No. 333-11607, Form S-8
Registration Statement File No. 333-15547, and Form S-4 Registration Statement
File No. 333-19185.


                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Dallas, Texas
 March 28, 1997
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 133649 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133649 COA: 267689 Wayne CC: 05-007334-01 ANTHONY LYNN RANDALL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 1, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

d0618 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2007

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1084

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND,

Petitioner - Appellee,

versus

PATRICK J. MUHAMMAD,

Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:05-

cv-03144-MJG)

Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: October 3, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Patrick J. Muhammad, LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK MUHAMMAD, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General

of Maryland, Gary W. Kuc, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Patrick J. Muhammad appeals the district court’s order

remanding the attorney disciplinary petition filed against him by

the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission (“AGC”) to the Maryland

Court of Appeals. The district court granted the AGC’s motion to

remand the petition after finding no basis for removal under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1442, or 1443 (2000). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2000), “[a]n order

remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is

not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order

remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed

pursuant to section 1443 . . . shall be reviewable . . . .” The

Supreme Court has limited § 1447(d) to insulate from appellate

review only those remand orders based on the grounds specified in

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2000): a defect in the removal procedure and

a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Quackenbush v. Allstate

Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996) (instructing that § 1447(c)

and (d) must be read in conjunction with one another). Thus,

because the district court concluded it lacked subject matter

jurisdiction under §§ 1441 and 1442, that portion of the remand

order is not subject to appellate review. Severonickel v. Gaston

Reymenants, 115 F.3d 265, 266-69 (4th Cir. 1997); Mangold v.

Analytic Servs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1442, 1450 (4th Cir. 1996); Noel v.

McCain, 538 F.2d 633, 635 (4th Cir. 1976). Accordingly, to the
- 3 -

extent Muhammad challenges the district court’s jurisdictional

determination under §§ 1441 and 1442, his appeal is dismissed. 

The district court’s conclusion that removal was also

improper pursuant to § 1443 is reviewable, however. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(d). After a thorough review of the record and the district

court’s order, we find no reversible error; accordingly, we affirm

this portion of the district court’s order on the reasoning of the

district court. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v.

Muhammad, No. 1:05-cv-03144-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 19, 2006). 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. 

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART