alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Case No. DA - 23 - 0 679

__________________________________________________________________

__ IN RE THE PARENTING OF L.R.K. and M.A.K. Minor child ren , BRETT E. KELLY ,

Petitioner /Appellee , and CRYSTAL D. KELLY n/k/a CRYSTAL D. MEYERS ,

Respondent /Appellant . **ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS** 

Upon consideration of

A ppellant’s Motion to Voluntarily Di sm iss Appeal, and fo r good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant Crystal Meyers ’ Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal is granted. This matter is dismissed.

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

January 11 2024

01/11/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0679
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC12-27-000]


Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing

    Take notice that on December 27, 2011, Midwest Independent 
Transmission System Operator, Inc. submitted a request for 
authorization to defer for future recovery certain costs with the 
integration of the Entergy Operating Companies.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). 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 notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#65232037262a0b090c0b00361015150a171125030017064b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0868592838faeaca9aea593b5b0b0afb2b480a6a5b2a3eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: January 20, 2012.

    Dated: January 6, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-508 Filed 1-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 21 52

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Nhu t Le; Ch ai M. Le
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff

v.
W el ls Farg o Ban k, N.A.; Sch il le r & Ada m , P.A.; Ja m es J. Pau ly; Div in e N. Difo ng wa

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es
Si dn ey Ji nt ara Yan g; W el ls Farg o & Co m pa ny
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s
Reb eccaSch il le r; S arah J.B. Ad am ; J effr ey D. Klob uc ar
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta- Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Marc h 6 , 20 15 Fi le d: Marc h 1 3, 2 01 5 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re MUR PHY, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Nhu t Le an d Ch ai M. Le ap pe al fro m th e or de r of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t di sm is si ng 1 th ei r co m pl ai nt

. Fo ll owi ng care fu l de no vo rev ie w, we ag ree with th e Dis tri ct Co ur t th at th e Les’ co m

pl ai nt—wh ic h was de vo id of factua l al le ga ti on s an d co nt ai ne d on ly

co nc lu so ry le ga l th eo rie s ab ou t im pr op rie ti es su rro undi ng the fo re cl os ur e sa le of th ei r ho m e an d th e un de rlyin g lo an -rel at ed do cu m en ts —fa il ed to st at e a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f co ul d be gr an te d. See Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 12 (b )(6 ); se e al so Ash cro ft v. Iqba l, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9) ( “To s u r v iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s, a co m pl ai nt m us t co nt ai n
su ffi ci en t factua l m at te r, acce pt edas tru e, to ‘ st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e
on it s face .’ ” (ci ta ti on to qu ot ed cas e om it te d) ); Bel l Atl an ti c Co rp
. v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 55 5 (2 00 7) ; Top ch ia n v. JP Mo rg an Ch as e Ban k, N.A., 76 0 F.3d 84 3, 84 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). W e ha ve co ns id ered th e Les’ ot he r arg um en ts fo r rev ers al an d fin d th em to be wit ho ut m eri t. W e th eref or e affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e Dis tri ctCo ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Th e Hon or ab le Su sa n Ri ch ard Nels on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a, ad op ti ng th e r e p o r t an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Je ffre y J. Keyes, Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta

. -2

-
Exhibit 11


                 Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings

NET LOSS PER SHARE
Net loss per share is calculated as follows:
(in thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          2001              2000            1999
                                                     ---------------   --------------- ----------------
<S>                                                   <C>              <C>             <C>
Net loss                                              $      (2,435)   $       (8,232) $       (17,328)
                                                     ===============   =============== ================
BASIC:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding                  10,573            10,271           10,000
                                                     ===============   =============== ================

  Net loss per common share                          $        (0.23)   $        (0.80) $          (1.73)
                                                     ===============   =============== ================

DILUTED:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding                  10,573            10,271           10,000
  Effect of dilutive securities:
   Convertible notes                                               -                 -                -
   Stock options                                                   -                 -                -
   Warrants                                                        -                 -                -
                                                     ---------------   --------------- ----------------
  Weighted average common and common
   equivalent shares outstanding                              10,573            10,271           10,000
                                                     ===============   =============== ================
  Net loss per common and common
   equivalent share                                  $        (0.23)   $        (0.80) $         (1.73)
                                                     ===============   =============== ================
</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1





PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of InferX Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the
“Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:       August
      20, 2009
              /s/ B.K. GogiaChairman
      of the Board(Principal
      Executive, Financial andAccounting
      Officer)





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not
being filed as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6338

LLOYD WAYNE WATSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-97-837)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd Wayne Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lloyd Wayne Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Watson v. Dep’t of Corr. Dir., No. CA-97-837 (E.D. Va. Feb.

27, 1998). 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
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.43 MB)

Tags:Loglines, September 2018, NESO, NWRM, Nuclear Weapons Related Material

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FREDERICK COBIA
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 510

[ January 23, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Joseph George Marx , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2009

- CF

009243

- A

.

Gerald T. Salerno of Gerald Salerno Law, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Senior, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm B each, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50762

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

QUITTMAN ANDRE GOODLEY, also known as Q-Good,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-331-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Quittman Andre Goodley has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Goodley has filed responses and has moved for appointment of new

counsel. 

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record

reflected therein, as well as Goodley’s responses. The record is insufficiently

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 19, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-50762 Document: 00512445839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2013
No. 12-50762

developed to allow consideration at this time of Goodley’s claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal

when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.

Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).

Further, we concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The motion for

appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

2

 Case: 12-50762 Document: 00512445839 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2013
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1664 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1664

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the appointment and 
        grade of the Chief of the Army Medical Specialist Corps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 14, 2009

  Mr. Johnson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the appointment and 
        grade of the Chief of the Army Medical Specialist Corps.

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

SECTION 1. APPOINTMENT AND GRADE OF CHIEF OF THE ARMY MEDICAL 
              SPECIALIST CORPS.

    Section 3070(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``captain'' and 
        inserting ``lieutenant colonel''; and
            (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following new 
        sentence: ``An appointee who holds a lower regular grade shall 
        be appointed in the regular grade of major general.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE> 1

                         (BDO Seidman, LLP letterhead)


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Allegiant Bancorp, Inc.
St. Louis, Missouri

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-13451 and 333-26433) and on Form S-3
(File No. 333-65699) of Allegiant Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) of our report
dated March 13, 1998, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
the Company as of and for the years ended December 31, 1997 and 1996,
appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1998.

                              /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 27, 1999
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 of Wolf Resources, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: November 24, 2008


/s/ Graeme McNeill
----------------------------------
Graeme McNeill
Principal Financial Officer
Principal Accounting Officer
### MEMORANDUM

**TO:** DOCKET #: EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2014

– 0198 **FROM** : Rebecca von dem Hagen, EPA/Stratospheric Protection Division **Re:** Meetings with Auto mobile Manufacturers Regarding Motor Vehicle Air

Conditioning R efrigerant Transition **Date:** July

9, 2014 This memo documents several meetings in earl y 2014 between EPA’s Office o f Air and Radiation (Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) and Office of Atmospheric Programs (OAP)), and representatives of several automobile manufacturers to discuss manufacturer plans for transitioning from the current air conditioning refrigerant to climate

friendl y alternative refrigerants. Specific information shared by automobile manufacturers was claimed as confidential. List of Meetings: **Automobile Manufactur**  **er Date**  **Automobile Manufacturer Attendees**  **Agency Attendees** Ford 1/28/14 Cy nthia Williams, Alyssa Werthman, Angelo Patti, Nancy Homeister Cindy Newberg, Ed Nam Chry sler 1/29/14 Frank Krich, Gary Oshnock, Mike Rinaldi Cindy Newberg, Ed Nam Ford 2/3/14 Cy nthia Williams, Alyssa Werthman, Angelo Patti, Nancy Homeister, Steven Lambert, Tim Wallington Cindy Newberg, Drusilla Hufford, Rebecca von dem Hagen , Margaret Sheppard, Dave Godwin, Ed Nam Daimler 2/3/14 Bill Craven, Jurgen Wertenbach Drusilla Hufford, Rebecca von dem Hagen Honda 2/6/14 Jim Kliesch Cindy Newberg, Ed Nam Hy undai 3/28/14 Debbie Bakker, Seungwon Shin, Amy Lilly , Ryan Fortier Cindy Newberg, Drusilla Hufford, Ed Nam, Tad Wysor Nissan 3/28/14 Yasumi Nakamura

Newbraugh Cindy Newberg, Ed Nam, Tad Wysor Volkswagen 3/28/14 Stuart Johnson, Nick Tamborra Cindy Newberg, Drusilla Hufford, Ed Nam, Tad Wysor Ford 4/22/14 Cy nthia Williams, Angelo Patti, Nancy

Homeister Cindy Newberg, Rebecca von dem Hagen , Ed Nam, Tad Wysor Toyota 4/28/14 Matt Kevnick, Rick Gezelle Cindy Newberg, Tad Wysor, Ed Nam Ford 5/15/14 Cy nthia Williams, Angelo Patti, Nancy

Homeister, Aly ssa Werthman Cindy Newberg, Rebecca von dem Hagen , Ed Nam, Tad Wysor
#### STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Ralph E. WALKER, Respondent.

SCBD No. 3447.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 29, 1988.

ORDER IMPOSING BAR DISCIPLINE

Upon consideration of: 1) the Bar complaint, 2) the answer thereto, 3) the proposed stipulations and conclusions with agreed recommendation for discipline, 4) the complainant’s brief-in-chief, 5) the waivers of response and reply briefs, 6) the transcript of the January 15, 1988 proceedings before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal’s trial panel and 7) the application for costs,

> the court hereby approves and adopts the findings, conclusions, interparty agreements and stipulations entered before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal’s trial panel, dated January 15, 1988 and filed herein January 20, 1988.

THE RESPONDENT-LAWYER’S LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IS ACCORDINGLY SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, WHICH SHALL BEGIN MARCH 15, 1988 AND RUN THROUGH MARCH 15, 1989, AND THE COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $992.66 STAND TAXED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT WITH DIRECTION THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT BE PAID NOT LATER THAN Sept. 16. 1988. *908Respondent shall not be reinstated unless the costs have been paid.

DOOLIN, C.J., and HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, OPALA, ALMA WILSON, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.