alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0594

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: A.G. and A.G., Youths in Need of Care. O R D E R

_________________ On January 23, 2023 , this Court granted leave to supplement the record and stay briefing pending supplementation, with Mother having 30 days from the filing of the supplemental record in which to prepare, file, and serve her opening brief. A ppellant Mother was advised that no further extensions of time would be granted. This Court received the supplementation to the record on March 6, 2023, but Mother did not thereafter file an opening brief . On April 17, 2023 , this Court ordered that Appellant file the opening brief no later than May 8, 2023 . That order provided, “Failure to file the brief within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice.” Nothing further has been filed. Because the order on appeal terminated Mother’s rights to her two children and she has a right to counsel on appeal, the Court is reluctant to dismiss the case without further notice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that counsel for Appellant Mother shall have ten days from the date of this Order within which to file with the Clerk of this Court either the Mother’s Opening Brief on Appeal or a written explanation why the brief has not been filed. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to Appellate Defender Chad Wright. Electronically signed by: Beth Baker Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 16 2023

05/16/2023
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

          - [Docket No. AS12-04]

# AGENCY:

Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

*Description:*                     In accordance with Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will meet in closed session:                

*Location:*                     OCC—250 E Street SW., Room 8C, Washington, DC 20219.                

*Date:*                     March 14, 2012.                

*Time:*                     Immediately following the ASC open session.                

*Status:*                     Closed.                

*Matters To Be Considered:*

February 8, 2012 minutes—Closed Session.

Preliminary discussion of State Compliance Reviews.

Dated: March 2, 2012.

James R. Park,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2012-5618 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
AAM-12-262-E May 21, 2012

Exemption No. 10536 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0136

Mr. James M. Williams Vertical Solutions, LLC

P.O. Box 3485 Valdez, AK 99686

Dear Mr. Williams:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 5, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Vertical Solutions, LLC (Vertical Solutions) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Vertical Solutions to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Vertical Solutions.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Vertical Solutions, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Vertical Solutions to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Vertical Solutions are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of the Vertical Solutions part 135 operation, not under part 91

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
Exhibit 10.23.1


Form of Acceptance
of Request for Extension


October ____, 2006


CONAGRA FOODS, INC.

One ConAgra Drive

Omaha, Nebraska  68102


	
  

  	
  Re:

  	
  Long-Term Revolving Credit Agreement dated as of
  December 16, 2005

  with ConAgra Foods, Inc.

  



 


Attention:  Scott Schneider, Assistant Treasurer


Dear Scott:


We have received your
Request for Extension, dated October 3, 2006, and pursuant         to Section 2.18 of the Agreement, we
hereby accept the extension as set forth in              your request.  As a result of such extension, the new
Termination Date will be            
December 16, 2011.


We have made a notation
of this extension on the Schedule of Loans, Payments of Principal and Extension
attached to our Syndicated Note(s).


Very truly yours,


	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Lender:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  
				



 



 61
 






 



Exhibit
10.23.1


 


Participating
Financial Institutions Executing Consent




	
  

  
	
  ABN Amro Bank

  
	
  BancaIntesa

  
	
  Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro

  
	
  Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria

  
	
  Bank of America

  
	
  The Bank of Nova Scotia

  
	
  Bank of Toyko-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., Chicago Branch

  
	
  Barclays Capital

  
	
  BNP Paribas

  
	
  Citibank

  
	
  CoBank

  
	
  JP Morgan Chase

  
	
  Lehman Brothers Inc.

  
	
  Merrill Lynch

  
	
  Mizuho Corporate Bank Ltd.

  
	
  Morgan Stanley

  
	
  Rabobank International

  
	
  Royal Bank of Scotland

  
	
  Societe Generale

  
	
  State Street Bank and Trust Company

  
	
  Sun Trust Bank

  
	
  Toronto Dominion

  
	
  UBS Loan Finance LLC

  
	
  US Bank

  
	
  Wachovia Bank

  
	
  Wells Fargo, National Association

  






 



 62
COUNTY OF 

May 16, 2013 

Ms. Joyce Epps, Director 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Air Quality 

Rachel Carson Building 

400 Market Street, P.O. Box 8468 

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468 

Dear Ms. Epps: 

RICH FITZGERALD 

C OUNTY EXECUTIVE 

ALLEGHENY 

We are pleased to enclose one paper copy of Allegheny County's portion of the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for the Liberty-Clairton area. An electronic copy has also been provided on the accompanying DVD. This 

SIP revision is being tracked as our Revision Tracking Number 75. 

We request that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection approve this revision and 

forward it to the U.S. EPA Region Ill with a recommendation for approval. 

Sincerely, 

{jftkvrAhl 

James E. Thompson 

Manager, ACHD Air Quality Program 

cc: Kirit Dalal, PA DEP Central Office 

Stephen Hepler, PA DEP SW Regional Office 

Enclosures 

PM25 SIP and Appendices and DVD 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT • AIR QUALITY PROGRAM 

301 39TH STREET8UI LDIN G #7 • PITTSBURGH , PA 15201 - 18 11 

PHONE (4 1 2) 578-81 0 3 • FAX (41 2) 578-8144
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL

- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0720n.06

No s

. 03

- 3626, 12

- 4269

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ANDRE WILLIAMS,

P etitioner

- Appellant

,

v.

CARL ANDERSON, WARDEN,

Respondent

- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

ORDER

BEFORE: MOORE, GIBBONS , and ROGERS , Circuit Judges.

On July 7, 2015, we vacated the district court’s denial of Andre Williams’s petition for a

writ of habeas corpus and remanded to the district court for the grant of a conditional writ of

habeas corpus “unless the State reassesses Williams’s Atkins [ v. Virg inia , 536 U.S. 304 (2002)]

petition consistent with this opinion.” Williams v. Mitchell , 792 F.3d 606, 6 24 (6th Cir. 2015).

Ten days later, Williams filed a motion with our court requesting that the attorneys who

represented him in connection with his fe deral habeas petition be appointed to represent him in

any state Atkins proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599. 1

1 18 U.S.C. § 3599(e) details the scope of representation permitted for federally appoi nted counsel, which extends to

every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings, including pretrial proceedings, trial, sentencing, motions for new trial, appeals, applications for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, and all available post

conviction process, together with applications for stays of execution and otherNo s

. 03

- 3626, 12

- 4269

- 2

-

There are two components to a successful claim for appointment of counsel: (1) the

petitioner must seek to be represented by counsel in “judicial proceedings transpiring

‘subsequent’ to her appointment ,” Harbison v. Bell , 556 U.S. 180, 188 (2009) ; and (2) the

petitioner must be “unable to obtain adequate representation

, ” id. at 189. W illiams argues that

any state Atkins proceeding will be “subsequent” to the federal habeas proceedings in which his

counsel has already been appointed , and that state

- funded counsel is unavailable to him.

We find it appropriate that the district court rule on Williams’s motion in the first

instance and find an y facts that may be necessary to do so. We therefore DENY Williams’s

motion, without prejudice to it s being renewed.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

____________________________________ Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

appropriate mo tions and proced ures, and . . . such competency proceedings and proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant.
United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460
Section 4 Submission This is an original submission: This is an amendment: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that (1) all information entered on this form is complete and accurate; and (2) any confidentiality claims are true and correct as to that information for which they have been asserted. Any knowing and willful misinterpretation is subject to criminal penalty pursuant to 18 USC 1001. Signature: Official Title: Director, Regulatory Affairs Contact Person: Kim A. Boudreaux Email Address: kim.boudreaux@albemarle.com Date Signed: 06/23/2014 PART 1 Contact Information Submission Information Submission Type:

TestRules Form Alias: TestRules-20140623-16:03:13 EDT Federal Register Notice: 76 FR 1067 Date Submitted: 06/23/2014 Submitter Information Company Name:

ALBEMARLE CORPORATION Address: 451 FLORIDA STREET BATON ROUGE, LA, 70801-1765 United States Contact Person: Kim A. Boudreaux Phone Number: 2253887776 Email Address: kim.boudreaux@albemarle.com Technical Contact Information CBI

Yes: No: Company Name: ALBEMARLE CORPORATION Address: 451 FLORIDA STREET BATON ROUGE, LA, 70801-1765 United States Contact Person: Ms Kim A. Boudreaux Phone Number: 2253887776 Email Address: kim.boudreaux@albemarle.com PART 2 Letter Of IntentSEC4 Submission Page 2

Chemical Identification CASRN:

68479-98-1 CBI Yes: No:
Chemical Name:Benzenediamine, ar,ar-diethyl-ar-methylChemical Test Name: F1 Sponsoring Firms CBI

Yes: No: Company Name: Albemarle Corporaton Address: 451 Florida Street Baton Rouge, LA, 70801 United States Phone Number: 2253887776 CBI Yes: No: Company Name: Lonza, Inc Address: 90 Boroline Road Allendale, NJ, 07401 United States Phone Number: 2013169365 Additional Information Document Type:

Modification of Standards or schedules File Name: N/A Attachment Date: 06/23/2014 Explanation and rationale for the modification: Additional time needed to finalize study report. Chemicals PART 5 Optional Substantiation Attached Document(s) File Name:

DEDTA Extension 6_20.pdf Attachment Date: 06/23/2014 Effects: Health Effects Endpoints: Developmental Toxicity/tertogenecity
Paperwork Reduction Act:The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3501) provides that, when practicable, Federal organizations use electronic forms, electronic filings, and electronic signatures to conduct official business with the public. EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) (40 CFR part 3), published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2005 (70 FR 59848) (FRL-7977-1)(Ref. 2), provides that any requirement in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to submit a report directly to EPA can be satisfied with an electronic submission that meets certain conditions once the Agency published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that EPA is prepared to receive certain documents in electronic form. For more information about CROMERR, go tohttp://www.epa.gov/cromerr/

.
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 (1.09 MB)

Tags:Distribution, NCO

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Michael Jordan Friedman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Fresh Harvest Products, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

/s/ Michael Jordan Friedman



_________________________________________

Michael Jordan Friedman, Chief Executive Officer

And Chief Financial Officer



Date: March 20, 2008
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Henry Norris, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance *1044Appeal Board, filed January 23, 1990, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, charged him with a recoverable overpayment of benefits, and imposed a forfeiture of effective days as a penalty in reduction of future benefits.

Contrary to claimant’s assertions, he was not totally unemployed during the period in question and, therefore, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board properly concluded that he was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The record reveals that claimant signed checks for a business, occasionally wrote out orders and invoices, and his joint income tax forms listed him as a proprietor of the business *(see, Matter of Witham [Roberts],*134 AD2d 752, 753; *Matter of DeVivo [Levine],*51 AD2d 619). Although claimant’s activities were minimal, this fact is not determinative as claimant stood to gain financially from the operation of the business *(see, Matter of DeVivo [Levine], supra).*The Board also properly determined that the overpayment in benefits was recoverable and that claimant made willful false statements *(see, Matter of O’Leary [Roberts],*93 AD2d 915). It was claimant’s responsibility to disclose all pertinent facts which might be determinative of his right to benefits and not decide for himself what activities constituted employment *(see, supra,*at 916).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles FORDYCE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83CA0205.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

May 30, 1985.

Rehearing Denied June 27, 1985.

Certiorari Denied Oct. 21,1985.

*9Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., John Daniel Dailey, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Terri L. Brake, Sp. Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

TURSI, Judge.

Defendant, Charles Fordyce, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for return of property. We affirm.

Defendant argues that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of rebutting the *prima facie*case of ownership of the items seized which he claims to have established through his testimony. We perceive no error.

Defendant was arrested while driving a stolen car and subsequently pled guilty to burglarizing a day care center. In this action, he seeks the return of several pieces of personal property, including four cassette players, four tool boxes, five electric drills, and miscellaneous tools, books, ash trays, crayons, and other items seized from the car at the time of his arrest. Also seized was a list of addresses of day care centers which included the center defendant was charged with burglarizing. None of the items defendant seeks to recover appeared on the inventory of property alleged to have been stolen from the day care center.

Generally, a *prima facie*case of ownership is made by a showing by the defendant that the goods were seized from him at the time of his arrest and that they are being held by law enforcement authorities. *People v. Buggs,*631 P.2d 1200 (Colo. App.1981). The burden then shifts to the prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the items seized were the fruit of an illegal activity or that a connection exists between those items and criminal activity. *People v. Ward,*685 P.2d 238 (Colo.App.1984); *People v. Rautenkranz,*641 P.2d 317 (Colo.App.1982).

Here, defendant’s attempt to establish a *prima facie*case of ownership of items seized in an admittedly stolen vehicle was grounded solely in his testimony. But, based upon the totality of the evidence, the trial court stated that it chose not to accept defendant’s testimony. Such determination of credibility was entirely within the purview of the trial court as the finder of fact and is binding upon us. The trier of fact is not required to accept a witness’ testimony, even though it is uncontrovert-ed. *Muhe v. Mitchell,*166 Colo. 108, 442 P.2d 418 (1968).

Order affirmed.

STERNBERG and METZGER, JJ., concur.