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

No. DA 21-0435

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DONALD RAY CHERRY,

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 December 14, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 4 2022

11/04/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0435
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 8.1

                      Subsidiaries of DRAXIS Health Inc.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                              Other Names Under
                                                                              Which Subsidiary is
Subsidiary                         Jurisdiction of Incorporation              Doing Business
----------                         -----------------------------              --------------
<S>                                <C>                                        <C>

DRAXIMAGE Inc.                     Canada (CBCA)

DRAXIS Pharma Inc.                 Canada (CBCA)                              DPI

Deprenyl Animal Health, Inc.       State of Louisiana                         DAHI

DAHI LLC                           State of Delaware

DAHI Nevada Inc.                   State of Nevada

DRAXIS U.S. Inc.                   State of Delaware

DAHI Animal Health (New            New Zealand (Companies Act 1993 as a
Zealand) Pty Limited               limited liability company)

DAHI Animal Health (UK)            England and Wales (Companies Act
Limited                            1985 as a private limited company)
</TABLE>
VICOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

EXTENSION OF MATURITY DATE OF 15% PROMISSORY NOTE

In consideration of (a) the continuing payment of interest, (b) the issuance of 10,000 shares of common stock and (c) other valuable consideration, the undersigned Holder of Vicors 15% Promissory Note No. PN-5 (the Note) in the principal amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) originally due on February 29, 2008, hereby covenants and agrees to extend the maturity date of the Note to April 30, 2008. The entire outstanding principal amount of the Note, together with all accrued and unpaid interest thereon, shall be due and payable on the Extended Maturity Date. All other provisions of the Note shall remain in force.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Holder has duly executed this Extension of Maturity Date.

Effective this 18th day of March, 2008.

By:
        /s/ Sheldon T. KatzSheldon T. Katz






---
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/08

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 08 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
Exhibit 99.2



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 Annual Report of Dynamic Health Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Cani I. Shuman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/    CANI I. SHUMAN                 
|--------------------------------------
|                                      
|Cani I. Shuman Chief Financial Officer



June
30, 2003
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Raymond SANDERS.

No. 89-K-0880.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Sanders, Raymond; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 20201-KA; Parish of Winn, 8th Judicial District Court, No. 32186.

Prior report: La.App., 639 So.2d 114.

Denied.
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 16, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, Inc. (“NCOIC”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Conference Concepts, Inc., San Diego, CA; Harris Corporation, Melbourne, FL; and Northrop Grumman Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NCOIC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 19, 2004, NCOIC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5486).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 22, 2011. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 21, 2011 (76 FR 79218).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2012-6285 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The meeting announced below concerns Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment of Influenza and Other Respiratory Infections in Ghana, Studies at the Animal-Human Interface of Influenza and Other Zoonotic Diseases in Vietnam, The Incidence of Community Associated Influenza and Other Respiratory Infections in the United States, and Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment of Influenza and Other Respiratory Infections in Panama and Central America Region, Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) IP12-001, IP12-002,IP12-003, and IP12-006, initial review.

*Correction:*                     The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 26, 2012, Volume 77, Number 17, Page 4047. The place should read as follows:                

*Place:*                     Crowne Plaza Hotel Atlanta-Airport, 1325 Virginia Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30344, Telephone: (404) 768-6660.                

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Gregory Anderson, MPH, MS, Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 718-8833.                

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Dated: March 6, 2012.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2012-6075 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### E. Jean CARRUTHERS v. PPG INDUSTRIES INC.

No. 88-C-2947.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Carruthers, E. Jean; —Plaintiff(s), applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA87-0884; Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, No. 83-6370.

Prior report: La.App., 534 So.2d 42.

Granted.
#### HENDRON et al. v. YOUNT-LEE OIL CO. et al.

No. 9286.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 9. 1940.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1940.

D.B. Chapin, of San Antonio, Tex., for appellants.

George S. Terry, Grover Sellers, J. W. Timmins, and T. L. Foster, all of Dallas, Tex., Wright Morrow, of Houston, Tex., and George Prendergast, of Marshall, Tex., for appellees.

Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Júdges.

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

This suit was brought by Dora B. Hendron, Emil Claude Howard and Glenn Howard against Yount-Lee Oil Co., Sun *760Oil Co., Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., Fidelity-Royalty Co. and S. G. Smith, to recover 53% acres of land, part of the Wm. Castelberry Survey, in Gregg County, Texas. Jurisdiction was asserted by reason of sufficient amount involved and diversity of citizenship; and on the ground that certain judgments of the Texas state courts deprived plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws and due process of law, in violation of the 14th Amendment. Jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and sufficient amount involved was admitted. Defendants pleaded res adjudicata and denied that a substantial federal question was presented for decision. There was judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the suit from which this appeal is taken. The complaint is lengthy but the case may be briefly stated.

Plaintiffs are the sole heirs at law of Z. T. Howard, who in 1904 owned the land in controversy. In 1904 the land was sold by the sheriff of Gregg County, on executions issuing from a justice of the peace court and the District Court, to W. R. Bass. Defendants hold by mesne conveyances from Bass. In October, 1934, plaintiffs brought suit against defendants in the District Court of Woods County, Texas, to recover the land, alleging the invalidity of the sale on substantially the same grounds as are urged in the suit at bar. That suit was decided against them by the District Court and on appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals the judgment was affirmed, Hendron v. YountLee Oil Co., 119 S.W.2d 171. The Supreme Court of Texas denied a writ of error.

It is apparent the plea of res adjudicata is good unless the judgments of the District Court of Woods County, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas above referred to, are set aside as depriving plaintiffs of due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment. In. the - case of Susie Williams et al. v. Allen Tooke et al., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 758, decided this day, on allegations of unconstitutionality substantially the same as in the case at bar, we had occasion to consider the jurisdiction of a District Court of the .United. States to set aside a judgment of a state court. On authorities cited therein, we held the District Court was without jurisdiction for want of the presentation of a substantial federal question. On the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.
#### STATE ex rel. Charles LANE v. R. Hilton BUTLER, Warden.

No. 88-KH-3122.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Lane, Charles; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “O”, No. 79-2841.

Not considered. Relator must first present his claims to the district court using the uniform application for post conviction relief.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.13

                           SUMMARY OF 2002 BONUS PLAN

     In April 2002, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
FreeMarkets, Inc. (the "Compensation Committee") adopted a bonus plan for the
Company's non-sales employees in 2002. The plan provides for the creation of a
bonus pool that is available to be allocated to the Company's non-sales
employees, including the Company's executive officers, if, in the judgment of
the Compensation Committee, the Company achieves specific revenue and operating
earnings objectives in 2002.

     The plan does not guarantee a bonus to any employee, even if the specific
objectives are met. In addition, the Compensation Committee has discretion to
modify the pay-outs having regard to Company and individual performance and
general industry and economic conditions, irrespective of whether the revenue
and earnings targets are satisfied or exceeded.
#### Tamara “Tammy” SORENSON, Plaintiff, v. Steve M. ALLER, James J. Hill, and Fred A. Moreton & Company, a Utah corporation, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Pam A. McCONAGHY, Third-Party Defendant and Appellant.

No. 19029.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Aug. 2, 1984.

Anthony M. Thurber, Salt Lake City, for Sorenson.

L.E. Summerhays, Salt Lake City, for third-party defendant and appellant.

Jay E. Jensen, Salt Lake City, for defendant and third-party plaintiff and respondent Hill.

PER CURIAM:

Third-party defendant MeConaghy seeks reversal of a judgment granting contribution against her as a joint tortfeasor in favor of defendants Hill and Fred A. More-ton & Company, pursuant to U.C.A., 1953, § 78-27-39. Plaintiff brought the action to recover for her injuries incurred in a three-car accident while she was riding as a passenger in the car driven by MeConaghy.

McConaghy’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was denied, and the case was submitted to a jury on the issue of the comparative negligence of the parties. The jury returned a verdict of 60 percent negligence on the part of MeConaghy. McCona-ghy’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. Thereafter, the trial court entered judgment requiring MeConaghy to contribute 60 percent of the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff.

MeConaghy cites as error the submission of the issue of comparative negligence to the jury and the denial of her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Her theory is that the guest statute, U.C.A., 1953, § 41-9-1, *et seq.,*precludes contribution from the host driver since the plaintiff cannot recover any damages against her host under the guest statute.

While this case was pending, this Court issued its opinions in *Malan v. Lewis,*Utah (No. 17606, filed May 1, 1984), and *Mair v. Lloyd Brothers Construction Co.,*Utah, 682 P.2d 866 (1984). In *Malan*this Court determined the guest statute to be unconstitutional, and in *Mair*we held that a host may be found to be a joint tortfeasor and subject to contribution for the injuries to his guest under U.C.A., 1953, § 78-27-39, *464*et seq.*These two cases are dispositive of all issues raised in this matter.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants Hill and Fred A. Moretón & Company.
#### Raymond N. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-0100.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 8, 1987.

*29Raymond N. Taylor, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert S. Jaegers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DELL, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying his motion for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. He claims ineffective assistance of counsel and alleges that his counsel failed to call a key alibi witness named L.C. Bryant. Appellant’s trial witness list did not contain the name of L.C. Bryant. However it did list a witness named L.C. Ruffin. The trial court failed to resolve the discrepancy regarding the identity (or identities) of L.C. Ruffin and L.C. Bryant.

Appellee has submitted an affidavit from appellant’s defense counsel which purports to answer the question concerning the identity of these witnesses. However it is not the province of this court to take evidence and to make findings of fact. The trial judge should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to resolve the discrepancy between these witnesses and the relevance, if any, to appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for post conviction relief and remand this matter for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7094

LEE EDWARD ELLERBEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

M. J. MCDADE, Superintendent; PEGGY JONES,

Head Nurse, Medical Staff; OFFICER KORNGAY;

FRANKLIN FREEMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-97-11-5-2-H)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Edward Ellerbee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action as frivolous. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Ellerbee v. McDade, No. CA-97-11-5-2-H (E.D. Va. July 28,

1997). Even if Appellant's prior 1995 action, which raised the same

allegations, tolled the limitations period, the complaint in this

appeal was filed outside the applicable three-year statute of limitations. 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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0563 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KASEY NICHOL HUGS,

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 January 13, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

December 5 2022

12/05/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0563
#### Albert Adams and others *vs.*Mille Lacs Lumber Company.

June 12, 1884.

Evidence — TJnautlienticated Telegram. — Hew trial granted for error in admitting in evidence an unauthenticated telegram; following *Burt*v. *Winona & St. P. li. Co.,*81 Minn. 472.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, refusing a new trial, in an action to recover for services rendered in driving logs belonging to defendant.

*James é Warren,*for appellant.

*Atwater é Hill,*for respondents.

Berry, J.

This is a controversy as to the terms of a contract under which plaintiffs drove certain logs for defendant. To prove their version of the contract, plaintiffs introduced a telegram. There was no competent evidence to show that it was sent by or on behalf of *217defendant, and its admission over defendant’s objection was therefore improper. *Burt*v. *Winona & St. P. R. Co.,*31 Minn. 172. The error in admitting it cannot be held immaterial, for the main question in the ease was whether one Heath had authority from defendant to make the contract which plaintiffs claim that he did make. Aside from the telegram, the only substantial evidence of his authority is found in admissions in defendant’s answer, and in a letter from defendant’s president. These admissions, however, are only of authority to make such a contract as is set up in defendant’s answer; that is to say, of a limited authority to make that particular contract •and no other. The telegram, in connection with some other testimony in the case, tended to show, or at any rate was introduced and received as tending to show, a general authority in Heath to make a ■contract with plaintiffs for the driving of the logs, without limitation as to terms. There must, therefore, be a new trial on account of its admission.

Order reversed, and a new trial directed.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ezra Carter v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00838

- CR

Trial court case number: 1576111

Trial court: 230th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the above

- referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a form motion requesting access to a c opy of the appellate record for use in preparing a response to appointed counsel’s brief. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant further requests a 3 0

- day extension of time to file

his pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief

Appellant’s request for a copy of the record is dismissed as moot because appellant’s appointed counsel averred in both her motion to withdraw and her Anders brief that she mailed a copy of the appellate record to appellant.

Appellant’s requ est for an extension of time to file h is pro se response is granted

. Appellant’s response shall be due within 30 days of the date of this order

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/ Justice Gordon Goodman

_____

Acting individually

Date: ___ May 9, 2019

__