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

OP 22-0261 

THOMAS FRENCH, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MONTANA TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT COURT, RAVALLI COUNTY, 

THE HON. JENNIFER LINT, Presiding, 

Respondent. 

ruLL ; D) 

JUN 0 7 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Thomas W. French has filed a notarized Motion to Compel with this Court. The 

Clerk of the Supreme Court has deemed it a petition for writ of supervisory control over 

the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County. M. R. App. P. 14(3). French 

includes a copy of the Ravalli County District Court's case register of a criminal case 

against him that was closed with entry of judgment in 2019. The case register indicates 

that French filed a motion in that cause number in February 2021 requesting "transcripts" 

and another motion nearly a year later "to Compel Request for Transcripts 

Communications Between Defense Attorney and Prosecuting Attorney Sentencing 

Documents" [sic]. French now moves this Court to compel the District Court to require 

the documents he seeks. 

The Court treats French's request as a petition for supervisory control because he 

seeks to have this Court compel action by the District Court. As the criminal case long has 

been closed, however, there is no proceeding in the District Court over which to take 

supervisory control. This Court twice has denied French's motions for out-of-time appeals. 

See State v. French, No. DA 20-0239, Order (Mont. May 5, 2020) and State v. French, 

No. DA 20-0289 (Mont. Jun. 2, 2020). 

06/07/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0261
French indicates that he requested copies of his complete case file from his former 

counsel with the Office of State Public Defender but received only a partial case file. It 

appears from the case register that French is not seeking documents that would be part of 

the District Court record from his criminal case but his former counsel's records of contacts 

with the County Attorney's Office. Whether such records do or do not exist, French's case 

has long been closed and he does not have an ongoing case or available remedy through a 

motion to compel in that proceeding. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED French's Motion, deemed a Petition for a Writ of 

Supervisory Control, is DENIED and DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the Honorable Jennifer Lint, 

Twenty-first Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, along with a copy of French's 

Petition; to Paige Trautwein, Clerk of District Court, Ravalli County, under Cause No. 

DC-2018-078; to counsel of record; and to Thomas French personally. 

DATED this 1— day of June, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

Justices
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00304-CR

Juan Nepomuceno Rodriguez

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1324633D)

November 12, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
1

Werner, Christopher

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 7:11 PM

To: Werner, Christopher

Cc: Lorang, Phil; Beaver, Melinda

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM -- 

Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55)

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_E013563_Regional Haze_

2060....docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: Regional Haze

Attached please find the summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for the draft proposed rule 

entitled, Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55). 

Thank you and please let me know if you have any comments or questions. 

Aaron L. Szabo 

Policy Analyst 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

202-395-3621 

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
1
2
3
4
5
6

Changes between CWNS 2008 and CWNS 2012 to enable the Gap Approach Option

Indicates Gap Facility

Year and first month 

of local fiscal year
7

Number of connections 

or accounts

Not applicable to Asset Management Analysis Needs
8

By default facility address zip code is 

populated. Lookup will allow selection of 

other service areas zip codes

Revenue & expenses is a 

sub tab under Needs tab

Future year values for 20 years will be auto-populated based on year 1 

and using escalation factors from Department of Labor and other 

sources. Auto-populated values can be updated. If the auto-populated 

values are updated the future values will be re-calculated accordingly.

Calculated 

using zip 

code(s)
#### Vernon SMALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and Ronald Mayer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 83CA1007.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Sept. 20, 1984.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1984.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 14, 1985.

*375Keller, Dunievitz & Johnson, Alex Stephen Keller, Stephen W. Wahlberg, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Baker & Hostetler, James A. Clark, Denver, for defendants-appellees.

KELLY, Judge.

Plaintiff, Vernon Small, appeals the order of the trial court dismissing his amended complaint against defendants, General Motors and Ronald Mayer, for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Because Small’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss the appeal.

The trial court order dismissing Small’s amended complaint was entered in the register of actions on April 20, 1983. On June 2, 1983, and within the additional time allowed by the trial court, Small filed a “motion for reconsideration,” which was denied on July 11, 1983. On August 16, another minute order appears in the register of actions showing judgment in favor of defendant against plaintiff and dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint. On August 25, Small filed his notice of appeal of “the final judgment entered August 16, 1983.”

 The issue is whether the order of dismissal entered in the register of actions on April 20, 1983, is the final judgment in this case which triggers the time requirements of C.A.R. 4 or whether the final judgment subject to appeal is that entered in the register of actions on August 16, 1983. We hold that the order of dismissal entered on April 20, 1983, is the final judgment, and that the “motion for reconsideration” filed by Small operated as a motion to alter or amend judgment suspending the running of the time until the ruling of the trial court thereon. *See*C.A.R. 4(a). Hence, the denial of the motion for reconsideration on July 11, 1983, is the critical date for determining the timeliness of the notice of appeal. *See Moore & Co. v. Williams,*672 P.2d 999 (Colo.1983).

Since, under the rule then applicable, only thirty days were permissible for the filing of the notice, and since there is no suggestion in' this record that the principles announced in *Converse v. Zinke,*635 P.2d 882 (Colo.1981) are applicable-to the entry of the purported August 16 judgment, we conclude that the filing of the notice of appeal on August 25 was untimely.

The appeal is dismissed.

TURSI and METZGER, JJ., concur.
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
PlanetCAD Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-50426) on Form S-3 of PlanetCAD Inc. of our report relating to the
consolidated balance sheet of PlanetCAD Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31,
2001 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-KSB of PlanetCAD Inc.

<Table>
<S>                                                       <C>
                                                          /s/ KPMG LLP
</Table>

Boulder, Colorado
August 15, 2002
#### Dean R. Pelton Company, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v Moundsville Shopping Plaza, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered January 23, 1990, which, *inter alia,*dismissed plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a real estate brokerage firm, commenced this action to collect a commission allegedly due for having procured a prospective buyer for a shopping plaza. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of *in personam*jurisdiction (CPLR 3211 [a] [8]). Although the IAS Court denied this aspect of the motion, it proceeded to dismiss the fourth cause of action of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), a ground not specified in the notice of motion. *(See, Keller v Levy,*265 App Div 723.) Nevertheless, where the wrong ground is designated but other CPLR 3211 (a) grounds do apply, the court may treat the motion as having specified the right ground and grant relief, absent prejudice, which has not been demonstrated *(see,*Siegel, NY Prac § 258).

Assuming that all of the plaintiff’s allegations are true, the fourth cause of action, for conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of its commission, was properly dismissed on the ground that New York does not recognize conspiracy as an independent tort *(Hickey v Travelers Ins. Co.,*158 AD2d 112, 118). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED NOV - 

## 3 ?J'l Clerk U S D' t . David P. Phillips, ) ", ' . . IS net &Bankruptc I"ourts fur the Distr,ct of COllJmda )**Plaintift~** ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 

### ...1 1.

# J.; l ) U.S.A., ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its review ofplaintiff's

### pro se complaint and application to proceed 

### informapauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. 

### See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal ofan action "at any time" the Court determines that it lacks subject matterjurisdiction). Plaintiffsues the United States for allegedly "refus[ing] to showpaperwork in accordance for [sic] investigation ofterror." Compl. He also alleges that defendant neglected to investigate "the theft ofart ... through torture." 

### Jd. Plaintiffseeks $30 trillion in damages. A claim for monetary damages against the United States is cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 

### etseq. Such a claim is maintainable, however, only after the plaintiffhas exhausted administrative remedies by "first present[ing] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency...." 28 U.S.C. § 2675. This exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. 

### See Abdurrahman v. Engstrom, 168 Fed.Appx. 445, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam) ("[T]he district court properly dismissed case [based on unexhausted FTCA claim] for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction."); 

### accord GAF Corp. v. UnitedStates, 818 F.2d 901, 917-20 (D.C. Cir. 1987); 

### Jackson v. UnitedStates, 730 F.2d 808,809 (D.C. Cir. 1984); 

### Stokes v. US. Postal Service, 937 F. Supp. 11, 14 (D.D.C. 1996). 

# .3The plaintiffhas not indicated that he exhausted his administrative remedies under the FTCA. Furthermore, the allegations "constitute the sort ofpatently insubstantial claims" that deprive the Court ofsubject matterjurisdiction. 

### Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006. 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009); 

### see Caldwell v. 

### Kagan, 777 F. Supp.2d 177, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) 

### CA district court lacks subject matterjurisdiction when the complaint 'is patently insubstantial, presenting

no federal question suitable for decision.''') (quoting 

### Tooley, 586 F.3d at 1009). Hence, the Court, finding it impossible for plaintitIto overcome thejurisdictional barrier, will dismiss this action with prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: October 

# f(J ,2011

2
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

     I, Rudy Wilson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Asia Automotive
Acquisition Corporation;

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, mot
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, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 we 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. The registrant's other certifying officers and 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 the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     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.


Dated: May 22, 2008                     /s/ Rudy Wilson
                                        Rudy Wilson
                                        Chief Executive Officer
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1836 

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further regulating 

the Internet. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 

further regulating the Internet. 

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 ‘‘Internet Freedom Act 

5 of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF THE FCC. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal Communications 

8 Commission shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any 

9 regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1836 IS

1 (b) EXCEPTION.—The limitation set forth in this sec2 tion shall not apply to any regulations that the Commis3 sion determines necessary— 

4 (1) to prevent damage to the national security 

5 of the United States; 

6 (2) to ensure the public safety; 

7 (3) to assist or facilitate any actions taken by 

8 a Federal or State law enforcement agency; or 

9 (4) to ensure the solvency of the Universal 

10 Service Fund established under section 254 of the 

11 Communications Act of 1934. 

12 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec13 tion shall be construed to supersede, repeal, or negate any 

14 regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services 

15 that were in effect on the day before the date of enactment 

16 of this Act, including any regulations established pursuant 

17 to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement 

18 Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 note). 

19 (d) GENERAL PRINCIPLES.—Congress finds that— 

20 (1) the Internet and all IP-enabled services are 

21 services affecting interstate commerce; and 

22 (2) such services are not be subject to the juris23 diction of any State or municipal locality. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
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.                  

###### United States International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-12-005] 

# AGENCY:

*Agency Holding the Meeting:*                         United States International Trade Commission.                     

# DATES:

*Time and Date:*                         March 14, 2012 at 11 a.m.                     

*Place:*                         Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.                     

# Status:

Open to the public. 

## Matters To Be Considered 

1. Agendas for future meetings: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Review)(Certain Orange Juice from Brazil). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before March 27, 2012. 

5. Outstanding action jackets: None. 

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

 Issued: March 5, 2012. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2012-5722 Filed 3-6-12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2059 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2059

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on triasulfuron technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Carper introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on triasulfuron technical.

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

SECTION 1. TRIASULFURON TECHNICAL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.13.28 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to triasulfuron technical) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2012''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1858 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 187
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1858

  To require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and 
                      reports in electronic form.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 22, 2009

 Mr. Feingold (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Bennett, and 
 Mr. Reid) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

                            October 26, 2009

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and 
                      reports in electronic form.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FILING BY SENATE CANDIDATES WITH COMMISSION.

    Section 302(g) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
U.S.C. 432(g)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(g) Filing With the Commission.--All designations, 
        statements, and reports required to be filed under this Act 
        shall be filed with the Commission.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 187

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1858

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and 
                      reports in electronic form.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 26, 2009

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60804

Conference Calendar

 

WILLIE H. BANKHEAD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:94CV26-S-D

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1997

Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Former prisoner Willie Bankhead appeals from the dismissal

of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. Bankhead contends

that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint on the

ground that he attempts to relitigate claims alleging

substantially the same facts arising from a common series of

events that already have been litigated. We have reviewed

Bankhead’s brief and the record and we find Bankhead’s appeal

frivolous. See Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994 (5th Cir.
No. 96-60804

- 2 -

1993).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.