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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 24-0010 

JAMES G. ARCHER, DENISE F. ARCHER, 

ROGER WAGNER, ANTOINETTE WAGNER, 

RUTGER NIERS, LAURA NIERS, GREGORY 

CHAPMAN, GREGORY SMITH, and LISA 

BRYANT, 

Plaintiffs and Appellants, O R D E R 

v. 

GORDON TAIT and MICHELLE JANZ, 

Defendants and Appellees. 

1:- r

JAN 0 9 2724 

Bowen Greenwood 

urt 

lt 

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants James G. Archer, et al., have filed a notice of 

appeal from the December 5, 2023 Order and Rationale on Motions for Summary Judgment 

entered in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, in its Cause No. DV-23-640E. In their 

Notice of Appeal, they assert that the appeal is taken from an order certified as final under 

M. R. Civ. P. 54(b) 

Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 4(4)(b), if an appeal is taken after a district court issues 

certification under M. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the notice of appeal shall state that fact and a copy 

of the certification order shall be attached to the notice. This Court then reviews the 

certification order for compliance with M. R. App. P. 6(6). 

If a court abuses its discretion in certifying an order as final under Rule 54(b), we 

are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Kohler v. Croonenberghs, 2003 MT 260, 

317 Mont. 413. 77 P.3d 531. Thus, even if not raised by a party, we will sua sponte 

determine if the court's certification order meets the criteria we have set forth in Roy v. 

Neibauer, 188 Mont. 81, 610 P.2d 1185 (1980), and Weinstein v. University of Montana, 

271 Mont. 435, 898 P.2d 101 (1995). Kohler, Til 8-9. 

01/09/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0010
In this case, Appellants failed to attach a copy of the certification order to their 

Notice of Appeal as required under Rule 4(4)(b). We therefore cannot determine if the 

court's certification order is in substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 6(6) 

and our case law interpreting certification orders under Rule 54(b) and this matter cannot 

proceed on appeal. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record. 

Dated this cl —day of January, 2024. 

2 

Chief Justice 

ttioaishas

. 

Justices
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T H A M D O K I M ; J I N O K K I M ; e t a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 72864 A ge nc yN os . A 071- 790- 402

A 071- 564- 734 A 071- 564- 735 A 071- 564- 737 ME MOR AN DU M * O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , W . F L E T C H E R , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H a m D o K i m , hi s w i f

e J i nok K i m , and tw o of the i rc hi l dr e n, na t i ve s and ci t i zen s o f S o u th K o rea, p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew o f th e B o ardo f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ o r d e rd is m is s in g th e irap p e a l f r o m an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s r e m o v a l o r d e r . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f ors ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e the



# FI LED OC T 6 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS06- 72864 2 a g e n c y ’s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t, an dr e v ie w d e n o v o qu e s tio n s o f law . Ki m v. H

older , 6 0 3 F .3 d1 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 2 ( 9 thC ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s f i nd i ng of re m ov abi l i ty by c l ear an dc o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . Se e id. a t 1 1 0 3 . T he agency di d n oterr i n con clud i ng thatpet i t i on er s w er e i nel i gi bl e f or a w ai ver of i nadm i ss i bi l i ty und er8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(k) w here they never poss es se d im m ig r an t v is a s . See K yongH o Shi n v. H

older , 60 7 F . 3d 12 13 , 12 19 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ) (t o b e el i g i b l e fo r a w ai v er u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (k ) an al i en m u stp o ssess an im m ig r an t v is a ) . P et i t i on er s’ cont ent i on thatthe go vernm entshou l d b e e qu i t abl y e st op ped f r o m o r d e r in g th e irr e m o v a l is u n av a ilin g . See Sul i t v. Schi l t gen , 213 F . 3d 449, 45 4 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( “ [E ] st op pel agai nstthe go vernm enti s unavai l abl e w here p e titio n e r s h av e n o t lo s t an yr ig h ts to w h ic h th e yw e r e e n title d .” ) ; c f . Sal gado-D i az v. G on zalez , 39 5 F . 3d 11 58 , 11 65 -68 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). P et i t i on er s’ re m ai ni ng cont ent i on i s notpers uasi ve. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### In re Hock.

(No. 31339

Decided March 24, 1948.)

*Messrs. Taft, Stettinius & Hollister*and *Mr. Robert Taft, Jr.,*for appellant Pete Hock.

*Mr. Aaron T. Grad*and *Messrs. Fogle & Fogle,*for appellees Pietro John Carmol Muscari and another.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER LANE PITMAN, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-96-12, CA-99-43-1-5-V) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Christopher Lane Pitman, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed” on April 21, 1999, and July 2, 1999, the district court’s records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on April 27, 1999, and on July 12, 1999, respectively. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Lane Pitman seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) and motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Pitman , Nos. CR-96-12; CA-99-43-1-5-V (W.D.N.C. April 27 & July 12, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PRESTIGE HOMES OF TAMARAC, INC., a Florida Corporation,

Appellant,

v.

CITY OF TAMARAC, a Municipal Corporation,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3281

[October 23, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Mily Rodriguez Powell, Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-045101 

CACE (03).

Robert M. Pasin, Coral Springs, for appellant.

Michael T. Burke and Duchant Johnson of Johnson Anselmo, 

Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See City of Pembroke Pines v. Corr. Corp. of Am., Inc., 274 So. 

3d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Paedae v. Escambia County, 709 So. 2d 575 

(Fla. 1st DCA 1998); City of Cape Coral v. Landahl, Brown & Weed Assocs., 

Inc., 470 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); City of Live Oak v. Arnold, 468 So. 

2d 410, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

CONNER, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
III

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 90

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 and updated version

of the House document entitled ‘‘Hispanic Americans

in Congress’’.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

HCON 90 RFS

1 SECTION 1. PRINTING OF REVISED VERSION OF ‘‘HISPANIC

2 AMERICANS IN CONGRESS’’.

3 An updated version of House Document 103–299, en4 titled ‘‘Hispanic Americans in Congress’’ (as revised by

5 the Library of Congress), shall be printed as a House doc6 ument by the Public Printer, with illustrations and suit7 able binding, under the direction of the Committee on

8 House Administration of the House of Representatives.

9 SEC. 2. NUMBER OF COPIES.

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

11 (b), in addition to the usual number, there shall be printed

12 30,700 copies of the document referred to in section 1,

13 of which—

14 (1) 25,000 shall be for the use of the Com15 mittee on House Administration of the House of

16 Representatives; and

17 (2) 5,700 shall be for the use of the Committee

18 on Rules and Administration of the Senate.

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

20 and production costs of the number of copies provided

21 under subsection (a) exceed $220,000, there shall be

22 printed the maximum number of copies of the document

23 referred to in section 1 for which such total costs do not
3

HCON 90 RFS

1 exceed $220,000, with distribution allocated in the same

2 proportion as in subsection (a).

Passed the House of Representatives October 9,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20D0100. HERIBERTO CAMACHO et al. v. US BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION.

Heriberto Camacho and Francisco Garcia Gomez filed an application for

discretionary appeal, seeking review of the trial court’s order granting U. S. Bank

National Association’s motion for summary judgment in this declaratory judgment

action. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of summary judgment on any issue or

as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal. See City of Demorest v. Town of Mt.

Airy, 282 Ga. 653, 654 n.1 (653 SE2d 43) (2007); Whiddon v. Stargell, 192 Ga. App.

826, 827-828 (386 SE2d 884) (1989). Ordinarily, when a party applies for

discretionary review of a directly appealable order, we grant the application under

OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). However, to fall within this general rule the application must be

filed within 30 days of entry of the order or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA §

5-6-35 (d), (j). Here, Camacho and Gomez filed this application 539 days after entry

of the order granting summary judgment. The application is therefore untimely, and

it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.1

1 Camacho and Gomez also filed a notice of appeal in the trial court from the

grant of summary judgment and that appeal was docketed in this Court as Case

Number A20A0375. On October 7, 2019, that case was dismissed for failure to file

a brief.

October 21, 2019
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/21/2019
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 118 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 118

Designating December 12, 1999, as ``National Children's Memorial Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 14, 1999

Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Byrd, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
    Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Helms, Mr. 
  Torricelli, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
   Smith of Oregon, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Abraham) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating December 12, 1999, as ``National Children's Memorial Day''.

Whereas approximately 80,000 infants, children, teenagers, and young adults of 
        families living throughout the United States die each year from myriad 
        causes;
Whereas the death of an infant, child, teenager, or young adult of a family is 
        considered to be 1 of the greatest tragedies that a parent or family 
        will ever endure during a lifetime; and
Whereas a supportive environment and empathy and understanding are considered 
        critical factors in the healing process of a family that is coping with 
        and recovering from the loss of a loved one: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL CHILDREN'S MEMORIAL DAY.

    The Senate--
            (1) designates December 12, 1999, as ``National Children's 
        Memorial Day''; and
            (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
        calling upon the people of the United States to observe the day 
        with appropriate ceremonies and activities in remembrance of 
        the many infants, children, teenagers, and young adults of 
        families in the United States who have died.
                                 <all>
```
Document

Exhibit 10.3


AMENDMENT TO 
CROWN CASTLE INTERNATIONAL CORP. 2013 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
THIS AMENDMENT by Crown Castle International Corp. ("Company"),
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Company previously established the Crown Castle International Corp. 2013 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended ("Plan");
WHEREAS, Article XIV of the Plan provides in relevant part that the Board of Directors of Crown Castle International Corp. ("Board") may (i) terminate the Plan at any time with respect to any shares of Common Stock for which any Awards have not theretofore been granted, and (ii) amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to cease grants under the Plan, subject to and contingent upon the approval by the stockholders of the Company of the adoption of the Crown Castle International Corp. 2022 Long-Term Incentive Plan; 
NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of, and subject to and contingent upon, the approval by the stockholders of the Company of the adoption of the Crown Castle International Corp. 2022 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Plan is hereby amended to provide that no further Awards shall be made under the Plan.  
Adopted by the Board 
on February 16, 2022 


			
	
	
By:  /s/ Donald J. Reid
	Donald J. Reid 
Corporate Secretary
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 224

Expressing the sense of the Congress that, as a symbol of solidarity following

the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001,

every United States citizen is encouraged to display the flag of the

United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 12 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 11), 2001

Mrs. EMERSON (for herself and Mr. SKELTON) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that, as a symbol

of solidarity following the terrorist attacks on the United

States on September 11, 2001, every United States citizen is encouraged to display the flag of the United

States.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked and destroyed four commercial aircraft, crashing two of them

into the World Trade Center in New York City, and

crashing another aircraft into the Pentagon outside

Washington, D.C.; and

Whereas thousands of innocent people were killed and injured

as a result of those attacks, including the passengers and

crew of the four aircraft, workers and visitors in the
2

•HCON 224 IH

World Trade Center and the Pentagon, rescue workers,

and bystanders: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) in response to the terrorist attacks on the

4 United States on September 11, 2001, United

5 States citizens should join together to defend and

6 honor the Nation and its symbols of strength; and

7 (2) for a period of 30 days after the date on

8 which this resolution is agreed to, each United

9 States citizen and every community in the Nation is

10 encouraged to display the flag of the United States

11 at homes, places of work and business, public build12 ings, and places of worship to remember those indi13 viduals who have been lost and to show the soli14 darity, resolve, and strength of the Nation.

Æ
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 25, 2011

t0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

142982

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142982 COA: 295396 Grand Traverse CC: 09-010846-FH DERRICK A. DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 Lease Equity Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Crit S. DeMent, Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner 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:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |  |  |                                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 15, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Crit S. DeMent                                   
|                        |  |  |  | Name: Crit S. DeMent                                 
|                        |  |  |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 43

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the printing of a revised and updated

version of the House document entitled ‘‘BlackAmericans in Congress, 1870–1989’’.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 43

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 43 EH

1 SECTION 1. PRINTING OF REVISED VERSION OF ‘‘BLACK

2 AMERICANS IN CONGRESS, 1870–1989’’.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—An updated version of House

4 Document 101–117, entitled ‘‘Black Americans in Con5 gress, 1870–1989’’ (as revised by the Library of Con6 gress), shall be printed as a House document by the Public

7 Printer, with illustrations and suitable binding, under the

8 direction of the Committee on House Administration of

9 the House of Representatives.

10 (b) NUMBER OF COPIES.—In addition to the usual

11 number, there shall be printed 30,700 copies of the docu12 ment referred to in subsection (a), of which—

13 (1) 25,000 shall be for the use of the Com14 mittee on House Administration of the House of

15 Representatives; and

16 (2) 5,700 shall be for the use of the Committee

17 on Rules and Administration of the Senate.

Passed the House of Representatives March 21,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        
                                 [ERRATA]
 
   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR

=======================================================================

                               HEARING

                             BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015

                               __________

                            Serial No. 114-7

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

                 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                    

         Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                              _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                
98-570 PDF                WASHINGTON: 2016
  _____________________________________________________________________________
  For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, 
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800
            Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                                [ERRATA]
                                
    An error was made on the cover of Hearing: U.S. Department 
of Veterans Affairs Budget Request for Fiscal Year. The year 
2016 was left out of the title. The title should be read as: 
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request for Fiscal 
Year 2016.
```