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

No. DA 19-0389

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JOSEPH WAYNE WATERS,

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 April 22, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 12 2020

03/12/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0389
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, David Koos, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bio-Matrix Scientific Group, Inc.;





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:





(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.  I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.








Date: July 21, 2010
By:
/s/ David R. KoosDavid R. KoosPresident and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

                In connection with the Quarterly Report ofiParty Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 27,2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

 

 
| Date:  November 12, 2003 | /s/ PATRICK  FARRELL                   |   |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                          | Patrick  Farrell                       |
|                          | President  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
No. 00-7432.

#### Reyes-Platero *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### FAA-2010-0279 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA hasthis proposal been discussed?

Organization NaliollallJusiness Air('raft Association Regiooal Airline Association Aircraft Owners &Pilots Association ATA 

### Person Contacted Eli Cotti Dave l,ottcr('r Robert Hackman Craig Fabian 

### Date 

### Response



# -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WICKIE TUTT, )

)

Petitioner, ) 

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 08-255 Erie

)

PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, et al., )

)

Respondent. )

ORDER

AND NOW, this 2 day of March, 2010; nd

Upon consideration of a letter filed by the Petitioner, Wickie Tutt, [Doc. No. 27], which

this Court has construed as an appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s text Order dated February 18,

2010 granting the Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to an Amended

Petition [Doc. No. 24], 

It is hereby ORDERED that the Appeal [Doc. No. 27] is DENIED. 

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin 

United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-00255-SJM-SPB Document 28 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 1
# L_2005199EN.01009401.xml

| 29.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 199/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 199/94

---

COUNCIL JOINT ACTION 2005/583/CFSP

of 28 July 2005

extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 14, 18(5) and 23(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 12 July 2004 the Council adopted Joint Action 2004/569/CFSP (1) on the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 12 July 2004 the Council adopted Joint Action 2004/569/CFSP (1) on the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

| (2) | On the basis of a review of Joint Action 2004/569/CFSP the mandate of the European Union Special Representative should be extended for a further six months. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review of Joint Action 2004/569/CFSP the mandate of the European Union Special Representative should be extended for a further six months.

| (3) | The European Union Special Representative will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as set out in Article 11 of the Treaty, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The European Union Special Representative will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as set out in Article 11 of the Treaty,

HAS ADOPTED THIS JOINT ACTION:

Article 1

The mandate of Lord ASHDOWN as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as set out in Joint Action 2004/569/CFSP, is hereby extended until 28 February 2006.

Article 2

Article 6(1) of Joint Action 2004/569/CFSP shall be replaced by the following:

‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR shall be EUR 270 000.’

Article 3

This Joint Action shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Article 4

This Joint Action shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 28 July 2005.

For the Council

The President

J. STRAW

---

(1)  
  OJ L 252, 28.7.2004, p. 7.

1

---
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-8 (No.  333-71179) of our report dated August 19, 1999 for the year ended
June 30, 1999, included in the Form 10-KSB of Sims Communications,  Inc. for the
year ended June 30, 1999.




                                          Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC

October 8, 1999
Denver, Colorado



<PAGE>








                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-8 (No.  333-84491) of our report dated August 19, 1999 for the year ended
June 30, 1999, included in the Form 10-KSB of Sims Communications,  Inc. for the
year ended June 30, 1999.




                                          Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC

October 8, 1999
Denver, Colorado
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3473 

To extend the prohibition on providing airport improvement grant funds 

to certain entities that have violated intellectual property rights of United 

States entities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12, 2023 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. PETERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To extend the prohibition on providing airport improvement 

grant funds to certain entities that have violated intellectual property rights of United States entities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Air Security Act of 

5 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3473 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF 

2 AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT GRANT FUNDS TO 

3 CERTAIN ENTITIES THAT HAVE VIOLATED IN4 TELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF UNITED 

5 STATES ENTITIES. 

6 Subsections (a) and (c)(2)(B) of section 10003 of the 

7 William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Author8 ization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116–283; 

9 134 Stat. 4864) are each amended by striking ‘‘2023’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘2024’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.2

                   APPLIEDTHEORY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 CALCULATION OF LOSS PER SHARE (UNAUDITED) (1)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                           JUNE 30, 2000
                                                                       -------------------
<S>                                                                   <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
       Shares outstanding at beginning of period                                21,413,362
       Weighted average shares issued during six months
       ended June 30, 2000 (3,011,266 shares)                                    2,058,694
                                                                           ----------------
                                                                                23,472,056
                                                                           ===============

Net loss                                                                   $   (23,897,000)
                                                                           ================

Loss per share attributable to common stockholders                         $         (1.02)
                                                                           ================
</TABLE>

===============================================================================

(1)  For a discussion of loss per share, see Note D of the Notes to the
     Financial Statements provided in Part I, Item 1 of our Form 10-Q for the
     period ended June 30, 2000.

                                       40
# EUR-Lex - 32005M3932 - EN

*|*

# 32005M3932

**Commission Decision of 10/11/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.3932 - THYSSENKRUPP / HELLENIC SHIPYARDS) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels , 10.11.2005

SG-Greffe(2005) D/206088

MERGER PROCEDURE ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION

To the notifying party

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: COMP/M.3932 - ThyssenKrupp/ Hellenic Shipyards

Notification of 03/10/2005 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 253, dated 13.10.2005, page 3.

1. On 03.10.2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking ThyssenKrupp AG ("TK", Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the Greek company Hellenic Shipyards S.A. ("HSY"), hitherto jointly controlled by TK and MAN Ferrostaal AG ("Ferrostaal") by way of purchase of shares.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for undertaking TK: production of steel, capital goods including civil shipbuilding (passenger ships, container ships, river cruisers, motor yachts) and military shipbuilding (naval surface vessels and submarines), and maintenance and repairs of such ships.

- for undertaking HSY: ship building and repair, and production of industrial constructions.

2. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph (d) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [2] .

3. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission, (signed)

Neelie KROES Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00153-CV

In the Interest of F.M.B. and P.W.B., 

Children

§

§

§

§

From the 322nd District Court

of Tarrant County (322-376634-04)

January 9, 2014

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant D.J.B. shall pay all costs of this appeal, 

for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
Adams, Kevin (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject:
Dear Sir, Mary Nelson <adakmary@yahoo.com> Saturday, May 11, 2013 5:35 PM Adams, Kevin (OST)
·Re: Request for Comments at Adak, Alaska
l**-~** ,j .-·-,-\--. ,: ';

My Husband and I are very pleased that Alaska Air Lines has put in a Bid for two more Years to service Adak. I hate to think of not having their great Service as we have been on the Island since 1996 and we have been through others and that were not satisfactory. I say a Big Thank you to Alaska Air Lines for their Bid and continued Service to our Community. Regards Mary & Ray Nelson From: "Kevin.Adams@dot.gov" <Kevin.Adams@dot.gov> To: Clerk@adak-ak.gov; Manager@Adak-ak.gov; agafon.krukoff@gmail.com; abourdukofsky@aleutcorp.com; aweaver@adaktu.net; Glenn.Muilenburq@dhs.gov; LMayes@AK.Net; adakmary@yahoo.com; adaktech@adaktu.net; TinyAviationent@live.com Cc: steve.hatter@alaska.gov; rich.sewell@alaska.gov; Linda.bustamante@alaska.gov; Marshaii.Sinick@squiresanders.com; Dennis. DeVany@dot.gov Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:48AM Subject: Request for Comments atAdak, Alaska Hi, Attached above is a copy ofthe single timely-filed proposal for Essential Air Service (EAS) at Adak, submitted by AlaskaAirlines. We are currently reviewing thatproposal. The attachedproposal is directly from the carrier and will soon be reflected in the Docket, which you may access through Regualtions.gov atDOT-OST-2000- 8556, along with otherpertinent information onthis proceeding. The next step inthe carrier-selectionprocess is for us to receive community comments, a critically important element in our carrier-selection decision, especially the comments ofcivic officials. I already talked informally to Mr. Layton Lockett, Adak's City Manager. He indicated that ifthere was only one carrier submitting a bid and ifthat carrier were AlaskaAirlines, the community would be pleased to submit its comments withinten days ofreceiving thatproposal, rather than the 30 days typically provided. Accordingly, I ask that everyone getback to us, preferablyby email, no laterthan May 21, 2013. We will docketthis email, as well as any replies. Inbrief, look atthe proposals, and ifyouhave any questions, call me, and get backto us bythe deadline, May 21. Best,
1
# L_2005027EN.01003501.xml

| 29.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 27/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 27/35

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 154/2005

of 28 January 2005

concerning tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender for the export to certain third countries of wholly milled and parboiled long grain rice B issued in Regulation (EC) No 2032/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in rice (1), and in particular Article 14(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was issued pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2004 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was issued pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2004 (2).

| (2) | Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 14(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 14(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders submitted from 24 to 27 January 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the export refund on wholly milled and parboiled long grain rice B to certain third countries issued in Regulation (EC) No 2032/2004.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 January 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 January 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 96.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 353, 27.11.2004, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1948/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 18).

3

---
#### INDIAN RIVER FOODS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CITRUSALES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-311.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 30, 1973.

Richard V. Neill, of Neill, Griffin, Jef-fries & Lloyd, Fort Pierce, for appellant.

Guy B. Bailey, Jr., of Pettigrew & Bailey, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below, brings interlocutory appeal to review denial of its motion to transfer venue of this cause from Broward County to St. Lucie County. We reverse on the authority of Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 480 and remand with instructions to grant appellant’s motion for change of venue.

REED, C. J., and CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.

ON PETITION FOR RE- ■ HEARING GRANTED

Having granted petition for rehearing and heard oral argument, we recede from our opinion and decision filed March 30, 1973, reversing the order denying defendant-appellant’s motion to transfer venue, and hereby affirm such order on the authority of Saf-T-Clean, Inc. v. Martin-Marietta Corporation, Fla. 1967, 197 So.2d 8.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.

CROSS, J., dissents without opinion.
No. 00-507.

#### Chickasaw Nation *v.*United States; and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Commu- • nity et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae*granted. Cer-tiorari granted.
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. William J. WINBURN, Jr., Respondent.

No. 40311.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 7, 1970.

*156Robert B. Kane, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

A. K. Black, Lake City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar entered in this disciplinary proceeding on August 12, 1970 and filed in this court August 20, 1970, with record, evidence and all proceedings had herein, came on to be reviewed by this court.

The report and order of the Board of Governors is as follows:

> “This cause came on for hearing before the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar upon the Referee’s Report and record of proceedings before him. The Florida Bar’s Complaint charged the Respondent with failure to properly represent two clients and failure to account to them for trust funds in his possession. The Referee found the Respondent guilty as charged and recommended that he be disbarred. Upon consideration, the Board of Governors concurs. Accordingly, it is

> “Ordered and adjudged that the Respondent, William J. Winburn, Jr., be disbarred and that he pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $412.-94.”

We have carefully reviewed the record, including report of the'"referee and the judgment of the Board of Governors. No request has been made for further proceedings by respondent, and after consideration it is

Ordered that the judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, dated August 12, 1970, that respondent, William J. Winburn, Jr., is guilty of unprofessional conduct and of the violation of Article XI, Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rule, Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rules 1, 27 and 28 of the Additional Rules Governing Conduct of Attorneys in Florida, 32 F.S.A. and that he be disbarred, be, and the same is, approved and adopted as the judgment of this court.

It is further ordered that respondent pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $412.94 for which execution is hereby directed to issue for the costs assessed against respondent.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.