alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Q. Ford WILSON and Marilee W. Wilson, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Alan B. MANNING, City Recorder, City of Fruit Heights, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 17632.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April 1, 1982.

Curtis J. Drake, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and appellants.

D. Kent Norton, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners brought this action for a writ of mandamus commanding a city recorder to submit a rezoning ordinance to a referendum. The district court denied the petition in an unsigned minute entry accompanied by a certificate of mailing which directed counsel for the defendant to prepare an order conforming to the minute entry. However, no order appears in the record and apparently none was entered. The notice of appeal states that petitioners appeal “from the minute entry entered in this action

An unsigned minute entry does not constitute an entry of judgment, nor is it a final judgment for purposes of Utah R.Civ.P. 72(a). Utah R.Civ.P. 58A(b) and (c); *Steadman v. Lake Hills,*20 Utah 2d 61, 433 P.2d 1 (1967); *Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Clegg,*103 Utah 414, 135 *656P.2d 919 (1943); *Robison v. Fillmore Commercial & Savings Bank,*61 Utah 398, 213 P. 790 (1923). Although well briefed and argued, this appeal must therefore be dismissed as improperly before this Court.

*So ordered.*No costs awarded.
Exhibit 32.1


                                             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 Aearo Company I (the 'Company'),
on Form 10-Q for the period  ended June 30, 2004,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the 'Report'), I, Michael A. McLain,
President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  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) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 A. McLain

    Michael A. McLain
    Chairman, President
    and Chief Executive Officer

August 16, 2004


A signed written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Aearo Company I and will be retained by Aearo Company I and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission and its staff upon request.
01/20/2010 16:08 FAX 2024935142 

Jan 2U 10 09:55a CONLN MALONEY MILLER 

FAA •» DMS 

5096231650 

gl002/004 

p.2 

I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

t> 

1 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINSTRATO N 

Complainant/ 

EMPIRE AlRLfNES, INC , 

dba EMPIRE AEROSPACE, 

ResponderL 

UNISTRATION / 

Docket No. - Unassfgned 

Case No. 2009NVt 1300014 

judge - Unassigned 

ANSWER 

The Respondeni-, by their Counsel, files this Answer pursuant lo the rules of 

practice and states as follows: 

\. 

1. Deny. 

M. 

1. Deny. 

2. . Deny. 

3- Admit that Section 51-00-01 establishes procedure for reporting defects to the 

manufacturer, but deny the remainder of Paragraph 3. 

4. Admit. 

5. Deny. 

ANSWER 

CONLIN , JV4ALONE V i i MlLLEk 

rvn"ni-(.Mi:vs.-\i L.'.U' 

Si'OICAME.W,».';iiiN(;rivN w;ii i 
01/20/2010 1G:0G FAX 2024935142 

Jan 20 10 09:55a CONLN MALONEY MILLER 

FAA + DMS 

5096231650 

12 003/004 

p,3 

J 

2 

3 

4 

S 

6 

7 

« 

0 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

ly 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6. Denv. 

7. Deny 

8. Deny, 

9. Deny. 

10. Deny, 

1 1. Deny. 

The Respondent denie.'? -iriy violation of Section 14,5.201 (c)(1), 145,207{a}, 43.13(a) or 

43,13(b) and respectfully requests that this matter be dismissed 

Respectfully submiitod thisy^- ^ day of January, 2010. 

Mark J. ConlkT , 

.attorney for RespOTi^ent 

ANSWER 

CONLIN . MAiONE V & MlLLEIl. 

^•ji >*' kivi-i<.siiJii.'\vis.,s..inT.<Jii 

Si-t,iicANi-; w/iSHlNCVior> T.OH 
01/20/2010 1G:0G FAX 2024935142 

Jan 20 10 09:55a CONLN MALONEY MILLER 

FAA + DMS 

5096231650 

21004/004 

P4 

3 

;i 

5 

6 

7 

10 

11 

L2 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Answer has been served via facsimil*^ and ceriified 

mail - Return Receipt Requested this date, to ihc following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

VVashington DC 20591 

ATTN; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

V\/ilbur Vv/right Building - Suite 2W1000 

Tax-202-493-5142 

David F. Shayne 

FAA Attorney 

Federal Aviation Admiriscration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW 

Renton, VJA 98057 

Fax-425-227-1007 

Dated this 20th day of January 2010. 

%~^-/\juX-r--\r^ if.Jd^J.' ^ 

Gwenn Kubik 

Legal Assistant to Mark J. Conlin 

ANSWE R 

CONJ-IM. MAUONE Y & MlLLKIt 

,S1"I0H-M1^1'.1 'M' l.WI 

«i M,.n.ivi;n.sinti\vt sum;'•I: i 

Sil'l>lC^^ll•..*AsHlH(.;'ll>^ if/idl 

(ill^)fi24-.ll).'.lJ
EXHIBIT
32.1





Section 1350
Certification


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code)





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Symmetry Medical Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Corporation”), does hereby certify that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter and nine months ended October
3, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Corporation 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
Corporation.





November
9, 2009


/s/
      Brian S. MooreBrian
      S. MooreChief
      Executive Officer/s/
      Fred L. HiteFred
      L. HiteChief
      Financial Officer
[Nos. 18452-4-II; 18604-7-II.

Division Two.

August 2, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Pedro Sanchez-Cruz, *Appellant.*The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Enrique Rojas Pontenez, *Appellant.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Pierce County, Nos. 94-1-01958-1 and 94-1-02057-1, Thomas Fel-nagle and Brian M. Tollefson, JJ., entered July 11, 1994 and August 25, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, A.C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Armstrong, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 251 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.251
                                      Agreed to October 17, 2001        

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Wednesday, 
October 17, 2001, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, 
October 23, 2001, for morning hour debate, or until Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses 
or adjourns at the close of business on Wednesday, October 17, 2001, or 
Thursday, October 18, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
recessed or adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 2001, or at 
such other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader 
or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until Members 
are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at 
such place and time as they may designate whenever, in their opinion, 
the public interest shall warrant it.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      496,405
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               353,976
<ALLOWANCES>                                 52,200
<INVENTORY>                                 448,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,401,273
<PP&E>                                      185,916
<DEPRECIATION>                               32,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            3,343,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       477,959
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                     23,691
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                2,865,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              3,343,582
<SALES>                                   2,098,997
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          2,139,632
<CGS>                                       681,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             2,845,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (705,442)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (265,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (970,442)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (970,442)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)


</TABLE>
2012 authorization from Decision XXII/6

(1) U.S. authorization from Decision XXII/6 1,022,826 4.0% 1,022,826 4.0%

(2) - Maximum allowable new production/import 922,826 3.6% 922,826 3.6%

(3) = Minimum allowable CSA 100,000 0.4% 100,000 0.4%

Calculate supply chain factor

U.S. authorization (1) 1,022,826 4.0% 1,022,826 4.0%

(4) - Reduction for uptake of alternatives 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

(5) = One year's CUE need 1,022,826 4.0% 1,022,826 4.0%

x Percentage of year's production to recover 42% 42%

(6) = SCF to meet that need 429,000 1.7% 429,000 1.7%

Calculate stocks (= CSA)

(7) Existing pre-phaseout inv on 1/1/11 ("ES") 1,802,715 1,248,876

(8) - 2011 CSA Use ("D") 337,633

(9) - 2011 Group II Use 773,000 3.0% 0.0%

- SCF (6) 429,000 1.7% 429,000 1.7%

(10) = stocks = CSA 263,082 1.0% 819,876 3.2%

Calculate carryover

(11) Reported as produced/imported in 2010 1,955,000 1,955,000

(12) - Reported as sold in 2010 1,955,000 1,955,000

(13) = Unsold carryover 0 0

Calculate new production (=CUA)

Total U.S. authorization (1) 1,022,826 4.0% 1,022,826 4.0%

- CSA (10) 263,082 1.0% 819,876 3.2%

- Carryover (13) 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

- Research 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

- uptake of alternatives 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

(14) = New production 759,744 3.0% 202,950 0.8%

Calculate total amount allocated

CUA (14) 759,744 3.0% 202,950 0.8%

 + CSA (3) 263,082 1.0% 819,876 3.2%

= Total 1,022,826 4.0% 1,022,826 4.0%

Proposed Rule Framework with New Data

Calculations for 2012 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption
Exhibit
32.1


Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant
to Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Rio
Holdings, Inc., hereby certifies that, to my knowledge, on the date
hereof:
  1.
              The
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rio Holdings, Inc. for the three months
      ended September 30, 2009 filed on the date hereof 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,
      as amended (the “Exchange Act”);
and
  2.
              The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Rio Holdings,
  Inc.
  Date:
      November 23, 2009
              
              /s/        MICHAEL L. WILFLEYMichael
      L. WilfleyChief
      Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, President and
      Treasurer
  The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b)
under the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. Section  1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. This
certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section  18
of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This
certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except
to the extent this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by
reference in any such filing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 18-0588

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

TRISTAN JAMES MORALES,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

This cause, which was previously classified for submission on briefs to a five-justice 

panel, is hereby reclassified for submission to the Court sitting en banc. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Rod Souza, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 15 2020

07/15/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0588
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 278

Commending Ernest Burgess, M.D., for his service to the Nation and

international community.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 28, 2000

Mr. KERREY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Commending Ernest Burgess, M.D., for his service to the

Nation and international community.

Whereas Dr. Ernest Burgess has practiced medicine for over

50 years;

Whereas Dr. Burgess has been a pioneer in the field of prosthetic medicine, spearheading ground breaking advances

in hip replacement surgery and new techniques in amputation surgery;

Whereas in 1964, recognizing his work in prosthetic medicine, the United States Veterans’ Administration chose

Dr. Burgess to establish Prosthetic Research Study, a

leading center for post operative amputee treatment;

Whereas Dr. Burgess was the recipient of the 1985 United

States Veterans’ Administration Olin E. League Award
2

•SRES 278 IS

and honored as the United States Veterans’ Administration Distinguished Physician;

Whereas Dr. Burgess’ work on behalf of disabled veterans

has allowed thousands of veterans to lead full and

healthy lives;

Whereas Dr. Burgess is internationally recognized for his humanitarian work;

Whereas Dr. Burgess established the Prosthetics Outreach

Foundation, which since 1988, has enabled over 10,000

children and adults in the developing world to receive

quality prostheses;

Whereas Dr. Burgess’ life long commitment to humanitarian

causes led him to establish a demonstration clinic in Vietnam to provide free limbs to thousands of amputees;

Whereas Dr. Burgess has received numerous professional and

educational distinctions recognizing his efforts on behalf

of those in need of care; and

Whereas Dr. Burgess’ exceptional service and his unfailing

dedication to improving the lives of thousands of individuals merit high esteem and admiration: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved, That the United States Senate commends

2 Ernest Burgess, M.D. for a life devoted to providing care

3 and service to his fellow man.

Æ
May 22, 2018



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DARON TAYLOR , Appellant

NO. 14

- 16

- 00583

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

___________________ _____________ This court today heard a motion for rehearing filed by appellant, Daron Taylor. We order the motion be d enied , and t he court’s former judgment of March 29, 2018 be vacated, set aside, and annulled. We further order this court’s opinion of March 29, 2018, withdrawn.

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record reveals error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment of the 178th
District Court VACATED and the case DISMISSED in that court. The cause remains pending in the 315th District Court for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40070 

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EARL JOSEPH HINES, JR.,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:94-CR-99-3

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Earl Joseph Hines, Jr., challenges the district court's twolevel upward adjustment for obstruction of justice. He argues

that his failure to advise law enforcement officers and the

probation officer that he had given a codefendant money to buy

drugs was not material to the offense, that this omission did not

impede the investigation of the case, and that the Government
No. 95-40070

-2-

failed to prove that he intended to impede the administration of

justice.

A district court's finding that a defendant has obstructed

justice under § 3C1.1 is a factual finding reviewed for clear

error. United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir.

1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1798 (1995). "Section 3C1.1

provides for the enhancement of a defendant's offense level `[i]f

the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to

obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the

investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant

offense.'" United States v. Cabral-Castillo, 35 F.3d 182, 186

(5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1157 (1995). The

adjustment may be appropriate when the defendant provides

materially false information to a probation officer. § 3C1.1,

comment. n.3(h). Material evidence, as used within § 3C1.1,

means evidence that "if believed, would tend to influence or

affect the issue under determination." § 3C1.1, comment.

(n.5)(emphasis added). 

Contrary to Hines' argument, his statements to the probation

officer directly affected an issue under determination: the role

of each defendant and their respective guideline calculations. 

Hines' repeated attempts to minimize his role in the offense

demonstrate that he made the statements willfully. The district

court did not clearly err in increasing Hines' offense level for

obstruction of justice. Accordingly, the district court's

judgment is AFFIRMED.
III

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 244

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 10, 2001

Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the printing of a revised edition of the

publication entitled ‘‘Our Flag’’.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

HCON 244 RFS

1 SECTION 1. PRINTING OF REVISED EDITION OF ‘‘OUR

2 FLAG’’.

3 A revised edition of the publication entitled ‘‘Our

4 Flag’’, revised under the direction of the Joint Committee

5 on Printing, shall be printed as a House document.

6 SEC. 2. NUMBER OF COPIES.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

8 (b), there shall be printed a number of copies of the publi9 cation described in section 1 as follows:

10 (1) 250,000 for the use of the House of Rep11 resentatives, distributed in equal numbers to each

12 Member of the House and each Delegate and Resi13 dent Commissioner to the Congress.

14 (2) 51,500 for the use of the Senate, distrib15 uted in equal numbers to each Senator.

16 (3) 2,000 for the use of the Joint Committee on

17 Printing.

18 (4) 1,400 for distribution to the depository li19 braries.

20 (b) ALTERNATIVE NUMBER.—If the total printing

21 and production costs of the number of copies provided

22 under subsection (a) exceed $150,000, there shall be

23 printed the maximum number of copies of the publication

24 described in section 1 for which such total costs do not
3

HCON 244 RFS

1 exceed $150,000, with distribution allocated in the same

2 proportion as in subsection (a).

Passed the House of Representatives October 9,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAWN HANSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3095

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-0752-14-0082-I-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. 

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. 

O R D E R

The Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) moves 

without opposition to remand this case for a jurisdictional 

hearing. 

In its decision, the Board dismissed Dawn Hanson’s 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Hanson failed to 

make non-frivolous allegations that her resignation was 

Case: 14-3095 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 08/25/2014
2 HANSON v. MSPB

involuntary. On appeal, the Board concedes that Hanson 

made the required non-frivolous allegations, and that she is 

entitled to a jurisdictional hearing before the Board. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. This case is remanded for 

further proceedings consistent with this order.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s30 

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 25, 2014

Case: 14-3095 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 08/25/2014
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: January 24, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Howard J. Hoffman, EPA - OGC

SUBJECT: November 21, 2014 Telephone Call with ACEEE Regarding Proposed Clean

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

On November 21, 2014, Joe Bryson of EPA-OAP and Howard J. Hoffman of EPA-OGC met by

telephone with Steve Nadel of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy to 

discuss legal issues concerning the proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants.