alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE S UPREME COU R T OF THE STATE OF MONTANA N o. DA 22

- 060 4

____________

__________________________________________________________________ TURNER, BRYSON,

Pet itioner and Appellant

v
. STATE OF MONTANA ,

Respondent and Appellee.

__________

____________

________________________________________________________ Order fo r Additional Time fo r F i li ng Opening Brief

_____________________ ____________

_____________________________________________ Upon reviewing the Petitioner/Appellant ’ s first First Unopposed Motion to
Extension of Deadline for Filing Appellant ’s Op ening Brief , good cause exists to grant the motion. Pursuant to the aut hority gr anted u nder Mont. R. App. P . 26(1),

t he Appellant is given an extension of t ime un til January 27, 202 3 , to file and serve the opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 29 2022

12/29/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0604
#### ROSS v. STATE.

No. 19216.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1937.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful sale of whisky in a dry area; penalty assessed at a fine of $100.

The complaint and information appear regular. The evidence heard upon the trial is not brought forward for- review.

The bill of exception found in the record tomplains of the fact that the county attorney made his opening argument to the jury, after which counsel for the appellant stated to the court that he did not desire to make an argument, whereupon the county attorney then made his closing argument to the jury.

Article 648, C.C.P.1925, declares: “The order of argument may be regulated by the presiding judge; but the State’s counsel shall have the right to make the concluding address to the jury.”

In view of the statute quoted, wé fail to perceive any error presented by the bill.

*In*the absence of the evidence adduced upon the trial, this court is unable to appraise the matters presented in the motion for new trial.

No error appearing justifying a reversal, the judgment of the trial court is. affirmed.
#### MEEK v. COODY et al.

No. 3088.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Nov. 8, 1934.

Cox & Hayden, of Abilene, for appellant.

6. W. Dunaway, of Midland (in trial court), for appellees.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The judgment appealed from was rendered February 26, 1934, by the district court of *260Midland county,at the term beginning February 19, 1934, and ending March 24, 1984. Motion for new trial was overruled on the last day of the term, and notice of appeal given by the appellant, Meek, who is a nonresident of Midland county. Appeal bond was filed April 21, 1934.

The term of court at which the case was tried is by law limited to five weeks. Acts 1933, 43d Leg., p. 371, c. 145 (Yemon’s Ann. Oiv. St. art. 199, subds. 32, 70, 109).

The appeal must be dismissed because the bond was not filed within 20 days after the expiration of the term, as required by Acts 1927, 40th Leg. p. 21, c. 15 (Vernon’s Ann. Oiv. St. art. 2253).

It has been repeatedly held by the Courts of Civil Appeal that the 30 day period allowed a nonresident in which to file appeal bond has no application where the term of the court is by law limited to 8 weeks or less. The Supreme Court so held in J. P. Webster & Son v. Lucas, 117 Tex. 64, 296 S. W. 1089.

Citation of rulings to the same effect by l he Courts of Civil Appeals is unnecessary.

The appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 23.2


               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

To the Board of Directors of
   nStor Technologies, Inc.


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on  Forms  S-3  (333-69495,   333-82223,  333-94935,  333-38784  and
333-36508),  Form S-4 (333-86093) and Forms S-8 (333-35495 and 333-94305) of our
report dated February 9, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial statements
of nStor  Technologies,  Inc. and of our report dated February 9, 2001, relating
to the schedules  appearing in the Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended  December  31, 2001.  Our reports  contain an  explanatory  paragraph
regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.



                                                /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
                                                BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Costa Mesa, California
April 5, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                           Exhibit 23.1


The Board of Directors,
Zemex Corporation,


Dear Sirs:


                             INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the prospectus 
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-4 "No. 333-65307", 
and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 "Nos. 33-60291 and 333-00561" 
of Zemex Corporation, of our report dated November 6, 1998 included in this 
Form 10-K/A-1 of Zemex Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1997, with 
respect to the consolidated financial statements, as amended.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chartered Accountants

December 9, 1998
D AN W EISS

M ANAGING D IRECTOR

, I NTERNATIONAL & R EGULATORY A FFAIRS ( 713 ) 324

- 6076

DAN

. WEISS @ COAIR

. COM

April 8, 2011

Esta Rosenberg, Chief

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division

U.S. Departm ent of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Notice of United Air Lines, Inc. and Air China

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2003

- 16213

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

Pursuant to the blanket Statement of Authorization granted to United Air Lines, Inc.

(“United”) and Air China by Notice of Action Taken dated October 24, 2003, United hereby

notifies the Department of the expansion of its code share with Air China involving the services

listed below.

 Air China’s “CA*” designator code will be placed on United

- operated flights between Los

Angeles, California and Shanghai, China.

 United’s “UA*” designator code will be placed on Air China

- operated flights between Los

Angeles, California and Beijing, China.

T he proposed code

- share services are fully c onsistent with the U.S.

- China Air Services

Agreement, as amended. United and Air China plan to implement these services on or after May

9, 2011

.

Respectfully submitted,

D an W eiss

Managing Director, International &

Regulatory Affairs

UNITED AIR LI NES, INC. AND

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INCCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on all

persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email:

carl.nelson@aa.com

donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil

howard_kass@usairways.com

dan.weiss@coair.com

john.allen@faa.gov

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

urskr@stat e.gov

Annalei Avanceña

Advisor

— Regulatory Affairs

April 8, 2011
SPARTECH CORPORATION
    
    EXHIBIT 21SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
 Legal Entity
    
    DBA
    
    Incorporation or OrganizationAlchem Plastics Corporation
    
    Spartech Plastics
    
    GeorgiaAlchem Plastics, Inc.
    
    Spartech Plastics
    
    DelawareAtlas Alchem Plastics, Inc.
    
    Spartech Plastics
    
    DelawareSpartech Packaging TechnologiesCreative Forming, Inc.
    
    Spartech Packaging Technologies
    
    WisconsinFranklin-Burlington Plastics, Inc.
    
    Spartech Color & Specialty Compounds
    
    DelawarePolymer Extruded Products, Inc.
    
    Spartech PEP
    
    New JerseySpartech Canada, Inc.
    
    Spartech Plastics
    
    CanadaSpartech Color & Specialty CompoundsSpartech Industries Florida, Inc.
    
    Spartech Marine
    
    DelawareSpartech Industries, Inc.
    
    Spartech Industries
    
    DelawareSpartech de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
    
    Spartech Plastics
    
    MexicoSpartech Color & Specialty CompoundsSpartech Polycast, Inc.
    
    Spartech Polycast
    
    DelawareSpartech Townsend, Inc.
    
    Spartech Townsend
    
    DelawareSpartech Polycom (Texas), Inc.
    
    Spartech Color & Specialty Compounds
    
    DelawareSpartech Polycom, Inc.
    
    Spartech Color & Specialty Compounds
    
    PennsylvaniaSpartech FCD, LLC
    
    Spartech Calendered and Converted Products
    
    DelawareSpartech Plastics, LLC
    
    Spartech Plastics
    
    DelawareSpartech Packaging TechnologiesSpartech Polycom, S.A.S.
    
    Spartech Color & Specialty Compounds
    
    FranceSpartech SPD, LLC
    
    Spartech Packaging Technologies
    
    DelawareSpartech CMD, LLC
    
    Spartech Color & Specialty Compounds
    
    DelawareSpartech Research and Development, LLC
    
    Technology Center
    
    Delaware
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02068

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 02068\02068_Checklist_102610_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02068\02068_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02068\02068_HardcopyLog.doc Plant submitted survey file

x 02068\02068_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02068\02068_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02068\02068_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

02068\Certification Statement_02068.pdf Plant certification statement

02068\Supporting Documentation\02068_MAP-1 CCPP.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02068\Supporting Documentation\02068_MAP-2 CCPP.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02068\Supporting Documentation\02068_WB-1 CCPP.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02068\Supporting Documentation\Tranismittal Letter CCPP (16-Sep-10).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 
**- 1890** 

BRIAN BACCHUS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
SOUTHEASTERN MECHANICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED ,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Roger W. Titus , District Judge. ( 8:10

- cv
- 01684

- RWT )

Submitted : November 15, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Brian Bacchus, Appellant Pro Se. David W. Long

- Daniels, Natasha L. Wilson, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; John Francis Scalia, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions ar e not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Brian Bacchus appeals the district court ’ s order
granting appellee’s summary judgment motion . We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Bacchus’ motion for a subp oena and affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Bacchus v. Southeastern Mech. Servs.,

Inc. , No. 8:10

- cv
- 01684

- RWT (D. Md. July 21, 2011) . 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         868,714
<SECURITIES>                                 3,500,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                  470,121
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (313,341)
<INVENTORY>                                     75,876
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               587,412
<PP&E>                                         383,347
<DEPRECIATION>                               (185,243)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,388,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,360,254
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,240,500       
<COMMON>                                    11,617,332
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,829,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,388,386
<SALES>                                         57,501
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           53,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,392,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (103,010)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,490,963)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,490,963)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,490,963)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.06)
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 133679 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 133679 COA: 276072 Ingham CC: 05-000604-FC DEXTER WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 16, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0723 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.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.5

PENGE CORP                                  1930 Village Center Circle 3
                                            Suite 446
                                            Las Vegas, NV 89134
                                            702-562-3176      Kirk Fischer
                                            801-541-9543      KC Holmes


March 5, 2003




Hi Roger,

Per our conversation yesterday here is a consulting agreement like we talked
about




            CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROGER MAJOR AND PENGE CORP.

Penge Corp would like to hire Roger Major on an ongoing basis to consult with
Penge Corp related to Tree Farm and other business opportunities for
approximately 500 hours a year. This lime is flexible and is primarily intended
to be used as strategy, information and relationship introduction time.

Penge Corp agrees to pay Roger Major $1,000 a month consulting fee beginning
April 1st, 2003. Either party can cancel this consulting fee with 30 days
written notice.

Penge Corp agrees to pay 150,000 shares of Penge common stock as a consulting
signing bonus on April 1st, 2003. Penge Corp agrees that on or before April
15th, 2004 Roger will be able to sell the shares on the open market to cover
$30,000 worth of personal taxes. If Roger is unable to sell the shares on the
open market then Penge Corp agrees to purchase the 150,000 shares for $30,000
before April 15th, 2004.

[HANDWRITTEN] *CHANGED TO 150,000 @ .10 = $15,000 ON 2/1/04


Roger Major                                Kirk Fischer, Penge Corp



/S/  Roger Major                           /S/ Kirk Fischer
------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
Date     March 5, 2003                     Date     March 5, 2003
    --------------------------------           --------------------------------
#### Kotz, Administrator, *v.*Smith, Appellant.

*Decedents’ estates*— Gifts *by. decedent*— Validity—Equity—Ac*counting.*

1. Where in a suit in equity by an administrator to recover from the daughter of plaintiff’s decedent money which plaintiff claimed belonged to decedent’s estate, the sole defense was that deceased had made a gift of the money claimed by defendant, but where other testimony did not clearly and affirmatively show the transaction of the alleged gift to have been the free and intelligent act of the decedent, fufiy explained to him and performed by him *347with a thorough understanding of the consequences, a decree for plaintiff was proper.

*Evidence*— Witnesses—Party *dead*— Competency.

2. In such case the defendant was not a competent witness to establish the gift.

Argued March 7, 1916.

Appeal, No. 321, Jan. T., 1915, by defendant, from decree of C. P. Northampton Co., Nov. T., 1914, No. 3, in equity, requiring defendant to pay a sum of money to plaintiff, in case of William C. Kotz, Administrator of the Estate of Edward Kotz v. Lillie A. Smith.

Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity to require defendant to pay a sum of money claimed by plaintiff as the property of his decedent’s estate. Before Brodhead, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The court awarded the relief prayed for. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was the decree of the court.

*Robert A. Stotz,*with him *Floyd B. MoAlee,*for appellant.

*Herbert F. Laub,*of *Smith, Paff <£ Laub,*with him *Harry D. Kuts,*for appellee.

April 17, 1916 :

Per Curiam,

The bill in this case was filed for the purpose of recovering from the defendant moneys which the plaintiff claims as part of the estate of the decedent, of which he is the administrator. The sole defense of' the appellant is that the decedent, her father, had made a gift to her of the moneys claimed by his personal representative. The learned court below correctly held that she was not *348a competent witness to establish the gift. In Allen’s Estate, 207 Pa. 325, cited as an authority in support of her competency, it was conceded that the father had made a gift or advancement to his son, and his estate having no right or interest in what had been so given or advanced, the son was not a person whose interest was adverse to the right of his deceased father. The interest of this appellant is adverse to- a right asserted by the personal representative of a deceased person. After reviewing the competent testimony offered by appellant, the learned chancellor below correctly concluded: The competent testimony offered by the appellant did “not clearly and affirmatively show the transaction of the alleged gift to have been the free and intelligent act of the decedent, fully explained to him and performed by him with a thorough understanding of its consequences.” We have not been convinced that this was an erroneous conclusion, and the decree is, therefore, affirmed at appellant’s costs.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2820 

To reauthorize the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2015 

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. JOLLY, and Mr. 

FATTAH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act 

of 2005, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stem Cell Therapeutic 

5 and Research Reauthorization Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC 

7 AND RESEARCH ACT OF 2005. 

8 (a) CORD BLOOD INVENTORY.—Section 2 of the 

9 Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 (42 

10 U.S.C. 274k note) is amended in subsection (h)— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2820 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘$23,000,000 for each of 

3 fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and’’; and 

4 (B) by inserting before the period at the 

5 end the following: ‘‘and $23,000,000 for each of 

6 fiscal years 2016 through 2020’’; and 

7 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘2011 

8 through 2015’’ and inserting ‘‘2015 through 2020’’. 

9 (b) NATIONAL PROGRAM.—Section 379B of the Pub10 lic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274m) is amended by 

11 striking ‘‘2011 through 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘2016 

12 through 2020’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 74933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20766]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 77-316, 96-050, 137-216, 175-030, 233-245, 606-041, 619-
175, 803-119, 1061-105, 1121-137, 1354-133, 1962-221, 1988-102, 2105-
129, 2106-077, 2107-051, 2130-125, 2310-252, 2661-094, 2687-189, 2735-
102, and 14531-002]


 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Pacific Generation LLC; Notice 
of Effectiveness of Withdrawal of Joint Application for Approval of 
Transfer of Licenses

    On December 13, 2022, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Pacific 
Generation LLC (applicants) filed a joint application for approval to 
transfer the following licenses:

Potter Valley Project No. 77,
Kerckhoff Project No. 96,
Mokelumne River Project No. 137,
Balch Project No. 175,
Pit 3, 4, and 5 Project No. 233,
Kilarc-Cow Creek Project No. 606,
Bucks Creek Project No. 619,
DeSabla-Centerville Project No. 803,
Phoenix Project No. 1061,
Battle Creek Project No. 1121,
Crane Valley Project No. 1354,
Rock Creek-Cresta Project No. 1962,
Haas-Kings River Project No. 1988,
Upper North Fork Feather River Project No. 2105,
McCloud-Pit Project No. 2106,
Poe Project No. 2107,
Spring Gap-Stanislaus Project No. 2130,
Upper Drum-Spaulding Project No. 2310,
Hat Creek Project No. 2661,
Pit No. 1 Project No. 2687,
Helms Pumped Storage Project No. 2735, and
Lower Drum Project No. 14531

    On August 12, 2024, applicants filed a notice of withdrawal of 
their application.
    No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, 
and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal. 
Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure,\1\ the withdrawal of the application became effective on 
August 27, 2024, and this proceeding is hereby terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2023).

    Dated: September 6, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-20766 Filed 9-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P