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

No. DA 23-0486

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

RANDY JOE FISH,

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 April 3, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 28 2024

02/28/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0486
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas August 9, 2021 No. 04-20-00243-CV THE LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS HUNSBERGER PLLC , Appellant
v. PHYSICIAN LIFE CARE PLANNING, LLC ,

Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CV04283 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing and En Banc Reconsideration is hereby granted. Time is extended until August 20, 2021.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of August, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-75-000]

Take notice that on November 1, 2000, Mississippi River Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing as part of its Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed below to be effective December 1, 2000.

Thirty Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5

Thirty Seventh Revised Sheet No. 6

Thirty Fourth Revised Sheet No. 7

MRT states that the purpose of this filing is to remove the Gas Price Differential Gas Supply Realignment Costs (GSRC) surcharge from MRT's FT, SCT and IT rates.

MRT states that a copy of this filing is being mailed to each of MRT's customers and to the state commissions of Arkansas, Illinois and Missouri.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make                           ( print page 68988)                        protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.                

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-29199 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 321 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 321

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   allowing an item veto in appropriations bills and an item veto of 
       contract authority or taxation changes in any other bill.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 1994

    Mr. Zimmer introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   allowing an item veto in appropriations bills and an item veto of 
       contract authority or taxation changes in any other bill.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The President shall have the power to disapprove in whole or in 
part any appropriation, any authority for the United States to enter 
into a contract, or any change in the rate or incidence of taxation on 
any special class of taxpayers and approve any other provision in the 
same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the 
appropriations, contract authority, or tax provisions disapproved, and 
shall return a copy of such disapproved appropriations, contract 
authority, or tax provisions, with his objections, to the House in 
which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall 
then be had as in the case of other bills disapproved by the 
President.''.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         168,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,268,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (140,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 30,334,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,710,000
<PP&E>                                       9,100,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,844,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,249,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,212,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,614,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,249,000
<SALES>                                     25,837,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,837,000
<CGS>                                       17,699,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,699,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,047,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             659,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,490,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   981,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,509,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ALEXANDER KOSNICKI, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-30070 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00144-RAJ-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 16, 2014 ** Seattle, Washington Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. Alexander Kosnicki appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

# FILED
MAY 23 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Kosnicki failed to demonstrate a “fair and just reason” for withdrawal of his guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Mayweather , 634 F.3d 498, 504 (9th Cir. 2010). Kosnicki knew of the allege d threats by the confidential informant before his guilty plea, even if he did not know of the recordings, and he does not explain how development of such threats could have made any particular defense plausible. He also does not explain whet her he informed counsel of the threats before his plea. Further, the existence of recordings was disclosed in discovery, and the recordings did not provide evid ence that the confidential informant made threats.

We decline to review Kosnicki’s ine ffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. This is not one of the “unusual cases where (1) the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue, or (2) the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” See United States v. Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 2011). We therefore l eave open the possibility that Kosnicki might raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in collateral proceedings. See id. at 1260.AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         158,047
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  807,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,904
<INVENTORY>                                    902,816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,016,805
<PP&E>                                       7,767,880
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,076,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,226,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,559,952
<BONDS>                                      2,224,955
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,014,110
<OTHER-SE>                                     791,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,226,080
<SALES>                                      5,885,271
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,885,271
<CGS>                                        4,225,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,225,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,641,192
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (108,129)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (52,915)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,677)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,238)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### JAMES v. STATE.

No. 25998.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for theft of property over the value of $50 and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.

It is charged that appellant took $153.89 in money from Florence Troutt, without her *952consent, under conditions ' constituting theft. Appellant waived a trial by jury and entered his plea of guilty. The plea was accepted by the court and the penalty was assessed.

There is no statement of facts, no bills of exception and no brief to indicate the grounds upon which appellant would ask this court to reverse his case.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
WEITZ BUILD IN GOOD COMPANY.

5901 THORNTON AVENUE DES MOINES lA 50321 P : 515

. 246.4700 F 515.246 4799 WWW

. WEITZ

. COM September30, 2015 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 NewJerseyAve. SE Washington, DC 20590 

### RE: Transmittal ofSection 333 Exemption Request Dear Sir or Madam: TheWeitz Company, LLC ("Weitz") has attached to this letter its requestfor exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations to allow commercial operation of its Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems ("sUASs") for aerial imaging for safety and monitoring of construction sites. Weitz owns drones manufactured by DJI (more particularlythe DJI Phantom 2, the DJI Phantom 2Vision Plus, and the DJI Phantom 3Advanced). Weitz seeks an exemption thatwill allowfor itto operate DJI Phantom sUASs in accordance with the limitations proposed in its exemption request. Attached to this letter are the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus and DJI Phantom 3 User Manuals, PilotTraining Guides, and the Quick Start Guides ("Manuals and Guides") which outline the operating requirements, limitations, and technical specifications. Weitz has reviewed the Manuals and Guides and found them to be acceptable for its sUAS operations on its construction sites. Weitz submits the Manuals and Guides as confidential under 14 CFR 11.35 (b) as the Manuals and Guides contain proprietary information thatWeitz has not and will not share with others. The Manuals and Guides contain operating conditions and procedures that are not available to the publicand are protected from release underthe Freedom of InformationAct 5 USC 552 et. seq. Sincerely, 

### THE WEITZ COMPANY, LLC 

# f=:amb T.:a/:!:a unsel P: 515.698.4282 C: 515.330.8754 rvan.lamb@weitz

.com

HONESTYAND INTEGRITY • RESPECT FOR PEOPLE • PERFORMANCEWITH ABSOLUTE RELIABILITY • LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE • NURTURING PERSONAL GROWTH
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 35

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution allowing an item veto in

appropriations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. KOLBE introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution allowing an

item veto in appropriations.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution if ratified by the

7 legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within

8 seven years after its submission to the States for ratifica9 tion:
2

•HJ 35 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘The President may approve, disapprove, or reduce

3 any item of appropriation in the same appropriation bill.

4 In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the

5 items disapproved and the items reduced, and shall return

6 a copy of such items, with his objections, to the House

7 in which the bill shall have originated. The same proceed8 ings shall then be had as in the case of other bills dis9 approved by the President, except that in the case of items

10 disapproved or reduced it shall take approval by three11 fifths of each House to become law.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 359 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 359

     To designate the week beginning June 13, 1994, as ``National 
                 Parkinson's Disease Awareness Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 1994

    Mr. Hobson introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
     To designate the week beginning June 13, 1994, as ``National 
                 Parkinson's Disease Awareness Week''.

Whereas Parkinson's Disease is a chronic neurologic, crippling disorder of the 
        nervous system;
Whereas Parkinson's Disease affects more than 1,500,000 people of all ages in 
        the United States and millions more around the world;
Whereas no cure is available at this time, but extensive research in 
        laboratories throughout the world has led to improved treatment in 
        alleviating symptoms while searching for a cure; and
Whereas Parkinson support groups, chapters, and information and referral centers 
        across America are dedicated to developing understanding of this disease 
        and community awareness of Parkinson's Disease by promoting discussions, 
        mutual sharing, and support among patients and family members and by 
        sponsoring educational and medical symposiums that help stimulate 
        research: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the week beginning June 
13, is hereby designated as ``National Parkinson's Disease Awareness 
Week''. The President is authorized and requested to issue a 
proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe 
that week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

                                 <all>
```
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2015, by andamong WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS,LLC, as Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, as Trust Advisor,WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as TaxAdministrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asTrustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2015-LC20 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwisedefined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period) , and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of itsobligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6021

JOSEPH PATRICK PAYNE, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS B. FAIRBURN; GARLAND STOKES; WILLIAM P.

ROGERS; JOHN B. TAYLOR; EDWARD MURRAY, Director; FRED E. JORDON, JR.; SAM FILIPIO; PAUL

WATSON, JR., ROBERT FRANCIS SMITH, JR.; EDGAR

ASHER; WILLIAM HOWARD MILLER; TERRY STILTONER,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JOHN LATANE LEWIS, III,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-88-1212-AM, CA-93-322-AM)

Submitted: October 22, 1996 Decided: November 5, 1996

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Joseph Patrick Payne, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. 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. Payne

v. Fairburn, Nos. CA-88-1212-AM; CA-93-322-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 16,

1995); see also Heck v. Humphrey, ___ U.S. ___, 62 U.S.L.W. 4594

(U.S. June 24, 1994) (No. 93-6188). 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