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

PR 21-0005

IN RE THE MOTION OF JOSEPH R.

RAMOS, JR. FOR ADMISSION TO THE

BAR OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

MAY 0 4 2021

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

Statp Mnntana

ORDER

Joseph R. Ramos, JR. has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State of

Montana pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar

Admissions Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the

Commission on Character and Fitness has certified that Ramos has provided the necessary

documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion

under Rule V. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions

Adrninistrator, Joseph R. Ramos, JR. may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of

Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the Clerk

of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State

Bar of Montana.

DATED this da of May, 2021.

05/04/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0005
Justices
### Regulatory Evaluation

Complete when issuing a supplemental NPRM, revision, or supersedure. 

## ⁭ No Change from existing AD action Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0645 Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NM

- 052

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table be low, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, e ngine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Inspection 36.0 $3,060.0 0 $0 $3,060.00 566 $1,731 ,960.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: 0 

### Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,731,960 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 0 

### Special **considerations for Economic Analysis** (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * N O
* Explanation:

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entiti es? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: Inspection

- only bulletin, for known in

- service cracking **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO
* Explanation:
#### Charles J. STEINGOLD et al. v. Philip R. FIXEL et al.

No. 39051.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 226 So.2d 267.
OPPI~E oF7m srroRNIEy aPNeLRAL OP7RXAS 

AUSTIN 

. . 

.- 0 land, pwohaso lease 

and parohose ad produoe 

ohlnery, m%toria1s, and 

tar0 ot cltratoelo and 

I ems, mmmltion, and impleevtioleo, eoulpaent 

aeososary to the nadional 

artlolss, 6qtlipJllenf 

Y 

ba repaired in t&t 

PSQ 0r any 0f ha roroe0ing 0~ 

otkemise rsoeessry la commotion thererrith;"~ 

( 13 0 . F. I?.. 1941 aapp.# p. lSG4) 

By lte~ehirtor ( S 0. IL d4Sl) and by statute 

(b stat. 846; 16 U. 8. C. As Stto. 610) the pCmo&al 

.' 
. . 

, 

. . 

. 

. 

: 

.- . 

Z’. 

i 

: 1 * 

: 

. 

i ’ 

. 

I:;.. 

f & 

: 

! ‘ i 
. 

Son. & ?at %&do *Pa@4 3. 

- . 

I 

I . 

i -. 

f . 

. 
-- 

. 

. 

-a Sk?. 

. . . . . . 

. . : . 

. . . . . 

. 

. 

. 
. 

. - 

- . 

* 

i 

I 

: T . 

-. . 

. 

. 

. . 

. .
No. 00-7416.

#### Ford *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Amelia MACIAS, Petitioner, v. The FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Bureau of Workmen’s Compensation et al., Respondents.

No. 40480.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 25, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2914 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2914

    To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt certain 
    employees engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding 
               services from maximum hours requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 26 (legislative day, September 22), 2023

Mr. Daines (for himself and Ms. Sinema) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt certain 
    employees engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding 
               services from maximum hours requirements.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN 
              OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL OUTFITTING OR GUIDING SERVICES.

    Section 13(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
213(b)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) any employee principally engaged in outdoor 
        recreational outfitting or guiding services and employed by an 
        employer principally engaged in the business of providing such 
        outfitting or guiding services that--
                    ``(A) does not operate for more than seven months 
                in any calendar year; or
                    ``(B) had average receipts for any six months of 
                the preceding calendar year that were not more than 
                33\1/3\ per centum of its average receipts for the 
                other six months of such year; or''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-36671) pertaining to the 1996 Amended and Restated Employee Stock
Option Plan and the 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Matrix Bancorp, Inc. of
our report dated March 20, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Matrix Bancorp, Inc. incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
March 30, 2000
#### SOUTHERN AMERICAN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Frank S. KAUFMAN and Ida E. Kaufman, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69-600.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 3, 1970.

*161Spellman & Hartnett, Miami, for appellant.

Maurice Rosen, No. Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellees received a jury verdict in their action against the appellant. The action was upon an insurance policy for water damage to the contents of appellees’ apartment. Final judgment was entered and this appeal followed. We affirm.

The first point presented questions the sufficiency of the evidence of damages. The expert opinion evidence as to the damages was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Cone, 80 Fla. 265, 85 So. 913 (1920). See also annotation at 12 A.L.R.2d 902, 937 (1950). The remaining point urges that the court should have granted appellant’s motion for a new trial because of the court’s refusal of defendant-appellant’s requested instruction upon its affirmative defense claiming lack of cooperation by the appellees in adjusting the loss. Without examining the validity of the defense, we have examined the trial record and agree with the trial court that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant-appellant did not present the issue. Therefore there was no error in refusing the instruction. See Rodriquez v. Haller, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 519.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2784 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 591
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2784

   To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to 
adjust the boundary of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical 
                     Park, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2023

 Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Vance) 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, with an amendment
  [Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to 
adjust the boundary of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical 
                     Park, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK BOUNDARY 
              ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 101 of the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 
1992 (16 U.S.C. 410ww) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Boundary Adjustment.--In addition to the sites described in 
subsections (b) and (c), the boundary of the park is adjusted to 
include approximately 1 acre of land in Dayton, Ohio, depicted as 
`Proposed Addition' on the map entitled `Dayton Aviation Heritage 
National Historical Park Proposed Boundary Addition' and dated February 
2023, numbered 362/193,730, and dated June 2024.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 591

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2784

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to 
adjust the boundary of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical 
                     Park, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 21, 2024

                       Reported with an amendment
```
No. 72-1028.

#### Field *v.*United States et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Aldo DiSORBO, as President of DiSorbo International, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Mario DiSORBO, Appellee.

No. 77-101.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 23, 1978.

Joseph L. Daye, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Joseph M. Balocco of Sobo • & Wellens, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment finding that appellee had a twenty (20) per cent stock interest in a certain Florida corporation and ordering the appellant to produce certain books and records of the corporation for inspection by appellee.

We have examined appellant’s three points and find two of them to be without merit. As to the third point, appellee has agreed that it is meritorious and, therefore, we reverse the final judgment as to point three and remand with directions to the trial court to enter an amended final judgment to provide for the appointment of an impartial and independent accountant to examine the aforesaid corporate books and records and to determine the value of ap-pellee’s stock interest in the corporation and report his findings to the trial court.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

CROSS and BERANEK, JJ., and DURANT, N. JOSEPH, Associate Judge, concur.

ALDERMAN, C. J., participated only on oral argument.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1122

GURLEY E. GLENN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TWO EMPLOYEES OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CA-98-498-1)

Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gurley E. Glenn, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gurley E. Glenn filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of

appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,

361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty

days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal

from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only

exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends

the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on December 18, 1998;

Glenn's notice of appeal was filed on January 20, 1999, which is

beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Glenn's failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal. We therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismiss the appeal. 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
#### Otis Davis JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1497.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 6, 1977.

Marvin J. Emory, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., HAVERFIELD, J., and DREW, E. HARRIS (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: *Burau v. State,*353 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977).
No. 00-742.

#### D’Elegance Management Ltd., Inc. *v.*United States for the Use and Benefit of S & D Land Clearing et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### James A. HARRELL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-429.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

April 23, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Custom er Service Hotline: 1**  **- 800**  **- 438**  **- 2474**  **UNITED STA**

**TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A**  **GENCY**

**REGION III 1650 A**  **rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103**  **- 2029**  September 20, 2013 The Honorable Randy

C. Huffman Secretary , West Virginia Department of Environ mental Protection Division of Air Quality 601 57 th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304
- 2943 Dear Secretary

Huffman : On August 7 , 201 3 , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received a revision to the West Virginia State I mp lementation Plan (SI P) from th e Department of Environmental Protection. Th is SI P revision request s redesignation of the Martinsburg
- Hagerstown , WV
- MD 1997 annual fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5 ) nonattainment area to att ainment and approval of the Area’s maintenance plan. EPA has dete rmined that the submittal is administratively and technically

complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Not ice of Proposed Rulemaking
. If members of y our staff have any questions, they

may direct them to Ms. Rose Quinto , Office of Air Program Planning at (215) 814
- 2 182 or at quinto.rose@epa.gov . She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerely , /s/ Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division
cc: John Benedict, WVDEP Fred Durham, WVDEP
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26156]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[ID-933-1430-01; IDI-8659]


Termination of Recreation and Public Purpose Act Classification; 
Idaho

agency: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

action: Notice.

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

summary: This notice terminates a Recreation and Public Purpose Act 
Classification on 160 acres so the lands can be clear listed to the 
State of Idaho pursuant to Sections 2275 and 2276, Revised Statutes, as 
amended (43 U.S.C. 851 and 852).

effective date: October 2, 1997.

for further information contact: Catherine D. Foster, BLM Idaho State 
Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, 208-373-3863.

supplementary information: On June 21, 1974, 160 acres were classified 
as suitable for Recreation and Public Purposes. The classification is 
hereby terminated and the segregation for the following described lands 
is hereby terminated:

T. 45 N., R. 2 W., B.M.
    Section 2: SE\1/4\SW\1/4\ (formerly Lot 13), SW\1/4\SE\1/4\.
    Section 14: NE\1/4\NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\SW\1/4\.

    The area described above aggregates 160 acres in Benewah County.

    At 9:00 a.m. on October 2, 1997, the Recreation and Public Purposes 
Classification will be terminated. However these lands will remain 
closed to location and entry under the public land laws and the mining 
laws, as they are currently segregated from appropriation by virtue of 
a valid In Lieu Selection application by the State of Idaho.

    Dated: September 22, 1997.
Jimmie Buxton,
Branch Chief, Lands and Minerals.
[FR Doc. 97-26156 Filed 10-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-66-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23933]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4158-000]

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company; Notice of Filing

September 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 12, 1997, Cleveland Electric 
Illuminating Company, tendered for filing Service Agreements for Non-
Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service. The following Agreements are 
between Centerior Service Company (as agent for the Companies) and 
American Electric Power, AES Power, Incorporated, Cinergy Services, 
Incorporated, Engage Energy, Incorporated, Norman Energy Services, and 
PacifiCorp Power Marketing, Incorporated. The Transmission Customers 
mentioned above have qualified as Eligible Customers by Centerior 
Energy for Non-Firm Transmission Service. The Companies request an 
effective date of July 1, 1997.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or protests should be 
filed on or before September 17, 1997. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23933 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Otis QUINCY.

No. 61700.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1978.

In re: Otis Quincy applying for writ of habeas corpus and/or motion to have appeal placed on preference docket. Parish of West Baton Rouge.

Denied.
#### SOUTHERN BUILDERS, INC. v. CARLA CHARCOAL, INC.

No. 62134.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 2, 1978.

In re: Envirotéch, Inc. applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Natchi-toches. 357 So.2d 638.

Writ denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25957]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Notice of Availability of Record of Decision (ROD) for the 
Program Definition and Risk Reduction Phase of the Airborne Laser 
Program (PDRR ABL)

    On September 16, 1997, the Air Force signed the ROD for the Program 
Definition and Risk Reduction Phase of the Airborne Laser Program (PDRR 
ABL). The decisions included in the ROD were made in consideration of, 
but not limited to, the information contained in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency on June 13, 1997.
    The decision rendered by the US Air Force is that the USAF will 
proceed with PDRR ABL Phase test activities at the following locations:

Home Base activities, including weapon system integration, ground tests 
and initial aircraft flight tests, will take place at Edwards Air Force 
Base, California.
Diagnostic test activities for initial short-range PDRR ABL equipment 
tests with non-destructive low-and high-power laser operations will 
take place over White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.
Expanded-area test activities for long-range PDRR ABL equipment checks 
with low-and high-power laser operations and firing of the high-energy 
laser will take place over the Western Range (Vandenberg Air Force Base 
and Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center, California). Target missiles 
will be destroyed during this test phase.

    The implementation of the PDRR ABL Phase test activities will 
proceed with minimal adverse impact to the environment. This action 
conforms with applicable Federal, State and local statutes and 
regulations, and all reasonable and practical efforts have been 
incorporated to minimize harm to the local public and the environment.
    Any questions regarding this matter should be directed to: Major 
Heidi Brothers (505) 846-7675. Correspondence should be sent to: SMC/TM 
Airborne Laser System Program Office, 1351 Wyoming Blvd. SE Bldg. 
20201, Kirtland Air Force Base, NM 87117-5557.
Barbara A. Carmichael,
Alternate Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-25957 Filed 9-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3901-01-P