alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 23-0005

IN RE MOTION OF DAVID G. CISIEWSKI FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

# FILED JUN 1 3 2023 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court Stata of Montana ORDER

David G. Cisiewski has moved for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana pursuantto Rule V oftheRules forAdmission,Admission onMotion. TheBarAdmissions Administrator ofthe State Bar ofMontana has informed the Court that the Commission on Character and Fitness has certified that Cisiewski has provided the necessary documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions Administrator, David G. Cisiewski may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contactingthe office ofthe Clerk ofthe Montana Supreme Court. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this /3 day ofJune, 2023.

ChiefJustice 06/13/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0005

# “

t _.,4 0 4 1 "/Ir- 4


## c. 2 -it /r 1 AIL Justices
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 17

- 00750

- CR Kevin Lamar JOHNSON , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 227th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2002CR4779 Honorable Philip A. Kazen Jr. , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 31, 2018
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION In the matter underlying this appeal, Appellant Kevin Lamar Johnson was convicted of aggravated r obbery and, on November 6, 2002, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2015, Appellant filed a motion for DNA testing, he appeared at the hearing, and the trial court denied his motion on August 14, 2015. More than two years later, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, and his untimely notice of appeal did not invoke this court’s jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.04

- 17

- 00750

- CR

- 2

- B ACKGROUND On July 24, 2002, Appellant was indicted for aggravated robbery of an elderly person causing bodily injury. Appellant was tried by jury and convicted of aggravated robbery (rep eater) on November 6, 2002, was fined $10,000.00, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

— Institutional Division. On June 5, 2015, at Appellant’s request, the trial court appointed counsel to represent Appellant in his DNA motion, and counsel filed a motion. Counsel and Appellant appeared in
person at the hearing on the motion

— and the trial court denied the motion in open court on August 14, 2015. Appellant did not file a motion to reconsider the order , a motion for new trial, or any other post

- decision pleading pertaining to the trial court’s Augu st 14, 2015 order

— until Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 9, 2017. Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel concedes Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely.
L ATE N OTICE OF A PPEAL A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Olivo v.
State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on September 14, 2015, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2, or his notice of appeal a nd a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal were due not later than September 2 8 , 201 5 , see id. R. 26.3

. Appellant’s November 9 , 2017 notice of appeal was not timely filed and did not invoke this court’s appellate jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a); Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).04

- 17

- 00750

- CR

- 3

- Appellant’s January 4, 2018 pro se m otion to represent himself in this appeal is moot. Because we lack jurisdiction, we do not consider Appellant’s January 17, 2018 pro se brief.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
FILED
APR ~ 6 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Glerk, U.S, District & Bankruptcy

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts for the District of Columbia
KERRY SHEA PRICE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case: 1:15-cv-00486
v. ) Assigned To : Unassigned
) Assign. Date : 4/6/2015
MICHERIE L.L.C., et al, ) Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck)
)
Defendants. )
~ MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and
his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed

without prejudice.

Plaintiff, a former employee of defendants, alleges that he has been physically assaulted,
forced to work in unhealthy conditions, and subjected to harassment, retaliation and a hostile

work environment, causing him to suffer mental and emotional distress.

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, federal district courts
have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit
is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Because plaintiff's complaint
does not set forth a constitutional or statutory basis for his claims, it is not apparent that this
action arises under the United States Constitution or federal law. Notwithstanding his demand
for damages in excess of $75,000, on the face of the complaint, plaintiff has not established
complete diversity of citizenship. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.


An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

pate: fut 2 Qos Uy 0. Vp

[onited Fates District Judge
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 22

                      BROWN & SHARPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
                      ------------------------------------
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                         ------------------------------



     Subsidiaries of the Registrant as of December 31, 1996 are as follows:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                                             Percentage of
                                                              Jurisdiction    Voting Power
                                                                   of         Owned by the
                    Name of Subsidiary                       Incorporation     Registrant
                    ------------------                      --------------  --------------
<S>                                                          <C>             <C>
 
     Borel & Dunner, Inc.                                    Michigan                  100%
 
     Technicomp Inc.                                         Delaware                  100%
 
     Roch - Brown & Sharpe S.A.                              France                    100%
 
     Mauser Prazisions Messmittel GmbH                       Germany                   100%
 
     DEA - Brown & Sharpe S.p.A. ** and its subsidiaries:    Italy                     100%
 
      DEA - Brown & Sharpe S.A.                              Spain                     100%
 
      DEA - Brown & Sharpe S.A.                              France                    100%
 
      DEA - Brown & Sharpe KK                                Japan                     100%
 
     Brown & Sharpe International Capital
      Corporation and its subsidiaries:                      Delaware                  100%
 
      Leitz - Brown & Sharpe Messtechnik G.m.b.H.            Germany                   100%
 
      Tesa - Brown & Sharpe S.A. and its subsidiaries:       Switzerland               100%
 
       P. Roch, S.a.R.L.                                     Switzerland               100%
 
       Tesa - Brown & Sharpe S.A.                            France                    100%
 
       Tesa - Brown & Sharpe KK                              Japan                     100%
 
      Brown & Sharpe Group Ltd.*  and its subsidiaries:      United Kingdom            100%
 
       White Lodge Financial Limited                         United Kingdom            100%
 
       Brown & Sharpe Ltd.                                   United Kingdom            100%
 
       Mercer - Brown & Sharpe Ltd.                          United Kingdom            100%
</TABLE>
*   Owned 71.3% by Brown & Sharpe International Capital Corporation and 28.7%
    by Tesa, S.A.
**  Owned 85.0% by Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company and 15.0% by Brown &
    Sharpe International Capital Corporation.
#### I.F.S. International, Inc., Appellant, v S.L.M. Software, Inc., Respondent.

—Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Travers, J.), entered March 14, 1990 in Rensselaer County, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Plaintiff, a New York corporation, has sued defendant, a Canadian corporation, for breach of contract. Defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, on forum non conveniens grounds. Supreme Court, noting that a question exists regarding whether personal jurisdiction of defendant had been acquired, dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds. Inasmuch as that doctrine has no application unless a New York court has obtained personal jurisdiction of a defendant *(Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v University of Houston,*49 NY2d 574), it *812was incumbent upon Supreme Court to make that threshold determination before undertaking a forum non conveniens analysis. The evidence in the record before us is conflicting on the issue of personal jurisdiction and thus requires a hearing for resolution.

Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr. and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s decision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          80,727
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,922,919
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,626,516
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,998,573
<PP&E>                                       2,308,933
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,515,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,172,133
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,273,289
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,515,622
<SALES>                                     39,146,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,146,987
<CGS>                                       34,100,426
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,100,426
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,571,871
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,457,923
<INCOME-TAX>                                   568,378
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            889,545
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   889,545
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29


</TABLE>
Exhibit (31)(1)

Certification

I, Robert E. Kistler, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Bonanza Gold, Inc.



(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, not 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4) I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Not required;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5) I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.







[ex31002.gif]
### DARYL BEALL STATE SENATOR Fifth District Calhoun, Humboldt, Pocahontas, and Webster Statehouse: (515) 281-3371

HOMEADDRESS 1928 North 22"d Street Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501 H: 515-573-7889

July 23, 2014 Honorable AnthonyFoxx United States Secretary ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590 

# tlbt ·s;enatt State ofIowa Eighty-fifth GeneralAssembly STATEHOUSE DesMoines, Iowa 50319

Re: Petition ofFort Dodge, Iowa, for a**two~year** waiver from the 10-Enplanement Statute Docket-DOT-OST-2001-10682 DearMr. Secretary: COMMITTEES Agriculture Commerce Education Transportation, Vice-chair Transportation & Infrastructure Budget Subcommittee, Vice-chair

Veterans Affairs, Chair

Fort Dodge is myhometown and I amthe voice, advocate and senator for 60,000 constituents in the FortDodge region. I write in support ofthe Fort Dodge Regional Airport application for a two-year waiver from the 10-enplanementperday standard. I cite**persona~** policy, professional and political reasons for myrequest. Because ofOUJ" growing economy aided by Essential Air Service policy, Fort Dodge has enjoyed dependable air service to the Twin Cities for decades. Then, without advance notice, Great Lakes Aviation suspended service in February 2014, leaving many stranded, including my wife who was unable to return home for a few days. She ultimately was able to fly from Phoenix to Des Moines. Because ofthis surprise suspension ofservice, with 54 flights canceled, FortDodge fell short a total of 196 passengers from meeting the 10 enplanement per dayrequirement. The cancelation of flights impacted my wife and hundreds more potential passengers flying in to and out ofFort Dodge. Fort Dodge andregional leaders are working tenaciously to obtain a new carrier. That endeavor is hamperedbythe falling short ofthe arbitrary 196 passengers. During the past legislative session, I sponsored legislation that created the Iowa Commercial Air Service Retention and Expansion Committee withinthe Iowa Department ofTransportation, to help Iowa communities, particularly Fort Dodge and Mason City, that were adversely affected. The legislationpassed with broadbipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor Branstad. The committee will meet during the interim and make policy recommendations to the Iowa General Assembly next session. That committee will closely monitor Fort Dodge's request for a two-year waiver. The Fort Dodge region is poised to make great progress withjob creation and economic development with two new plants opening within the past few months, Cargill and CJ BioAmerica, with potentially more in the queue. We are working diligently to expand the so-called Ag Park west ofFortDodge: The lack ofreliable air service hampers that development. Mr. Secretary, I strongly urge you to consider and approve Fort Dodge's request for a two-year waiver from the 10-enplanementrule so my community can getbackto business through dependable air service.

· Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

# JO__,vvre/3~ Senator Daryl Beall
ooma-ex1019_124.htm



Exhibit 10.19

Ooma, Inc.

May 2, 2022

 

Ravi Narula

 

VIA EMAIL

 

Dear Ravi:

 

Ooma, Inc. (the “Company”) previously granted you certain options to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Options”) pursuant to the Company’s 2015 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan).  Further, as of June 15, 2021, you and the Company entered into a Transition and Consulting Agreement which provided for your continued service with the Company as a consultant to the Company through November 1, 2021 (the “Consulting Agreement”).  Per the terms of the Consulting Agreement, (i) your Options continued to vest through and including November 1, 2021, and ceased vesting after November 1, 2021, (ii) the Term/Expiration Date of your vested but unexercised Options was extended to June 15, 2022, and (iii) your outstanding unvested Options, and your outstanding unvested restricted stock units previously granted pursuant to the Plan, expired upon on November 1, 2021.

 

We are writing to you now to notify you that the Company has further amended your vested Options to extend the time you will have to exercise your vested Options. Specifically, subject to your return of an executed copy of this letter to the Company on or before 5:00 p.m. PT on May 9, 2022, the Options will be amended to extend the post-termination exercise period of your Options such that the Options will remain outstanding and exercisable to the extent vested until the earliest of (i) December 15, 2022, (ii) the maximum original expiration date applicable to the Options (i.e., the 10-year term of the Options), and (iii) such earlier date as may be provided or permitted by the Plan, including, without limitation, in connection with a dissolution or liquidation of the Company or a change of control of the Company (the “Option Extension Amendments”).

 

Please consult with your personal tax or financial advisor if you have any questions related to the impact of the Option Extension Amendments on your Options.

To indicate your agreement to the Option Extension Amendments, please sign and date this letter in the space below and return it to me on or before 5:00 p.m. PT on May 9, 2022.  Effective upon your execution of this letter, the stock option agreements evidencing your Options (the “Option Agreements”) will be deemed amended to reflect the Option Extension Amendments. To the extent not amended by the Option Extension Amendments, the Option Agreements will remain in full force and effect. This letter, and all acts and transactions pursuant hereto, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed, construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to conflict of law principles.

 

Sincerely,

 

OOMA, INC.

By: /s/ Eric Stang

Name:Eric Stang

Title:President and CEO

Agreed and Accepted

/s/ Ravi Narula

Ravi Narula

 

Dated: 5/2/2022
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 31 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR HOLOCAUST 

4 DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY. 

5 Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is 

6 authorized to be used on April 29, 2019, for a ceremony 

7 as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance 
2 

•HCON 31 EH 

1 of victims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the 

2 ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such con3 ditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 9, 2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 31 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall for a 

days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. ceremony as part of the commemoration of the
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30958

REID ZEISING; DIXIE RESTAURANT GROUP, L.L.C., 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

MICHAEL A. SHELTON; SHELTON RESTAURANT GROUP, L.L.C., 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:12-CV-2614

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed because an enforceable oral 

contract was not mutually agreed upon by these parties. The acquisition, 

purchase and terms, of the 29 Popeye’s restaurants, how they would be 

operated and what – if any – consideration and role Zeising would contribute, 

was left wide open. At best, it could be said only that they agreed to agree, but 

that is not an enforceable contract under Louisiana or Georgia law. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 14, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-30958 Document: 00513004474 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2015
No. 14-30958

See McNeely v. Town of Vidalia, 102 So. 422, 423 (La. 1924); Moss v. Moss, 463 

S.E.2d 9 (Ga. 1995). Likewise, Shelton did not have a contract with Dixie, nor 

did he owe it a fiduciary duty. Ga. Code § 14-11-304(a).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-30958 Document: 00513004474 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2015