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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0071

PATRICK O. NEISS,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 7-day extension of time, and 

good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including July 29, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s

response.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 19 2021

07/19/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0071
May 29, 2015 

Mr. Shane Braegger 

544 North 300 East 

Brigham City, UT 84302 

Dear Mr. Braegger: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 29, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1219), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICHARD MICKMAN,

Respondent

v.

ELAINE MICKMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 178 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of September, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Integrated Device Technology, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. Wl5P7T-06-C-PO 18 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58876

William J. Kelley, III, Esq.

Kelley & Kelley Irvine, CA E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Lawrence S. Rabyne, Esq.

Senior Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Arlington Heights, IL ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 5 November 2014

# ~~#.~~ MARK N. STEMPLER Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58876, Appeal ofIntegrated Device Technology, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 19, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H10829-H10830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 
2008--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110-
                                  158)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message 
from the President of the United States; which was read and, together 
with the accompanying papers, without objection, referred to the 
Committee on Financial Services and ordered to be printed:

                                               The White House

                                 Washington, DC, October 14, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to section 115(a) (2) of the 
     Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-
     343) (the ``Act''), I hereby certify that it is necessary for 
     the Secretary of the Treasury to

[[Page H10830]]

     exercise the authority granted under the Act to purchase, or 
     commit to purchase, troubled assets up to the limit of $350 
     billion outstanding at any one time.
           Sincerely,
     George W. Bush.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 99B

Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to  Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to  Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
David Garofalo, Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited ("Agnico-Eagle"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Agnico-Eagle for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Agnico-Eagle.

|                             |  | by | /s/DAVID GAROFALO                                                 
|---------------------------- |  | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|                             |  |    | David Garofalo Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
|Toronto, Canada
May 20, 2005 |  |    |                                                                   

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Agnico-Eagle and will be retained by Agnico-Eagle and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
# FOIA Log CY23 Q3
#### THE STATE, ON THE RELATION OF JONATHAN COPELAND *vs.*JOHN WOOD, AND OTHERS.

When an order is made, in a suit pending in a Court, that a notice shall issue to one of the parties, the Clerk is not bound to issue such notice, unless it be applied for in behalf of the party who obtained the order.

December 1842.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Perquimons County, at Fall Term, 1842, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding. The facts and questions presented in this case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

*A. Moore*for the plaintiff.

No counsel ior the defendant.

Daniel, J.

The defendant was the Clerk of the County Court of Perquimons, and this was an action of debt on his official bond. The breach assigned, was his failure to issue a notice to one Albertson, and place it in the hands of the Sheiifftobe served. A constable had levied on thé lands of Albertson, under an execution issued by a justice of the peace, on a judgment in favor of the relator against the said Albertson, and the warrant, judgment, execution and levy, had been returned into the County Court of Perquimons, at May Sessions, 1841 ; but the constable did not return any copy of a written notice of the said levy given by him to Albertson, as ho, by act of Assembly, was directed to do. At May Sessions, 1841, the followingentry was. made on the record, in the aforesaid-cause: “No judgment, for the want of notice, ordered that the Clerk issue notice.” It was admitted, that the Clerk did not issue the notice of the levy as ordered, nor did the relator, by himself or agent, call upon the Clerk for the said notice. At August Sessions, 1841, the above order was renewed, and the defendant ceased to be Clerk at that Term. The Court charged the jury, that it *24was the duty oí the Clerk to have issued the notice, as it had been ordered by the Court, although neither the relator nor his agent had applied for the same ; and that if the relator had sustained damage by this omission of duty, he was entitled to recover the amount of that damage. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff; there was judgment, and the defendant appealed.

We believe, that it has been usual for the Clerks of the Courts in this State, to issue process, notices and copies of orders made in civil causes, and place them in the hands of the Sheriffs to be served and executed ; but we are ignorant of any law that makes it the official duty of the Clerk to do it. Neither the relator nor his agent ever demanded the notice of the Clerk. If such a demand had been made, and the Clerk had then refused to make it out and deliver it to such demandant, in a reasonable time, he would have been guilty of a breach of his duty, but not before such demand. We are of opinion, that the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted.

Per Cúriam.' New trial awarded.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ DOROTHY LAFORTUNE, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF VETERAN S AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2016

- 2350

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 15

- 1381, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

______________________
Decided: September 8, 2017

______________________

K ENNETH M. C ARPENTER , Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant

- appellant.

S ARAH C HOI , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washin gton, DC, argued for respondent -appellee. Also represen ted by J OYCE R. B RANDA , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R ., A LLISON K IDD -M ILLER ; Y. K EN L EE , M ARTIE A DELMAN , C HRISTINA L YNN G REGG , Office of General Counsel, Uni t-LAFORTUNE v. SHULKIN 2

ed States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________
Before M OORE , C HEN , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. Our jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court is limited by statute. Unless an appeal raises a constitutional issue, we lack jurisdiction to review “a challe nge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). The issues raised on appeal are all l imited to the appeal of fact findings as to whether Ms. LaFortune and the v eteran entered into a ci vil / ceremonial or common

- law marriage. We see no que stion of law . Because Ms. LaFortune’s appeal only involves factual determinations and the application of law to the facts of the case, Ms. LaFortune’s appeal is beyond the

scope of our jurisdiction. We dismiss for lack of jurisdi ction.

DISSMISSED

C OSTS

No costs.
#### HENRY HUTAFF v. ADRIAN & VOLLERS.

*Injunction*— Remedy *at Law•*— Statute *of Limitations*— Sale *Under Power.*

"Where, a mortgagor in possession has a full defence to an action for ejectment when brought by a purchaser at a sale under a mortgage barred by the statute of limitations,' the Court will not interfere by injunction to prevent a sale threatened by the mortgagee. It would be otherwise if there were a contest as to the amount due under the mortgage.

This was a MOTION to dissolve an injunction, heard before *Connor, J.,*at January Term, 1893, of New Hanover Superior Court.

The complaint, used as an affidavit upon which the order had been granted, alleged that the plaintiff, in March, 1871, in order to secure his promissory note to defendants, due 1st day of April, 1872, executed to them a mortgage upon certain land-in Wilmington, with the usual power of sale in case of default in the payment of the note; that no payment has ever been made on the note and mortgage, which became barred by the statute of limitations on the 1st of April, 1882, and no action has ever been brought on the same *260by the defendants; that the plaintiff has been in actual possession of the land ever since the execution of the mortgage; that defendants have advertised the land for sale on 2d February, 1893, and plaintiff prays that théy be perpetually enjoined from selling, etc.

From the order dissolving the injunction, plaintiff appealed.

*Mr. E. S.*Martin, for defendants.

No counsel *contra.*

Clark, J.:

Upon the allegations in the complaint taken as true the defendants’ bond and mortgage are alike barred by the statute of limitations. *The Code,*§152 (2) and (3). A sale under such mortgage would carry to the purchaser no title. The plaintiff mortgagor being in possession has a full defence to an action for ejectment when brought by the purchaser. *Capehart*v. *Biggs,*77 N. C., 261; *Fox*v. *Kline,*85 N. C., 173. The Court will, therefore, not interpose by injunction merely to prevent a cloud upon the title. *Southerland*v. *Harper,*83 N. C., 200; *Browning*v. *Lavender,*104 N C., 69.

It would be otherwise if the contest was 'as to the amount due under the mortgage (whether any balance is due at all, or how much), since then, if any balance is due. the purchaser at the mortgage sale will get a good title, and it might put the plaintiff mortgagor to a serious disadvantage if there were a sale before the amount due is determined. *Purnell*v. *Vaughan,*77 N. C., 268; *Capehart*v. *Biggs, supra; Pritchard*v. *Sanderson,*84 N. C., 299; *Harrison*v. *Bray,*92 N. C., 488; *Gooch*v. *Vaughan, Ibid.,*610.

No Error.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DR. STEVEN GREENFIELD,

Respondent

v.

HANOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 405 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of February, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the registrant's financial statements as of and for the period ended July 31, 
1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                        993,177 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                               5,737,605 
<ALLOWANCES>                                  416,000 
<INVENTORY>                                   867,150 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            8,016,841       
<PP&E>                                      9,548,047      
<DEPRECIATION>                              5,464,990    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             15,562,524      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       7,871,527    
<BONDS>                                             0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                    1,979,971 
<OTHER-SE>                                  5,282,858       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               15,562,524         
<SALES>                                     3,438,520          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            7,863,937          
<CGS>                                         656,112          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               4,467,684          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            4,071,365       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               14,768      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             16,312       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (689,184)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                (240,000)      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (449,184)      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                (449,184) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.11) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.11) 
        

</TABLE>
**TABLE OF CONTENTS**       PageARTICLE 1    Relation to Indenture; Definitions         Section 1.01*. Relation to Indenture*  2 Section 1.02*. Definitions*  2 Section 1.03*. General References*  2      ARTICLE 2    Terms and Issuance          Section 2.01. *Issue of Notes*  2 Section 2.02. *Form of Notes, Authentication Certificate*  2 Section 2.03. *Additional Notes*  2      ARTICLE 3    Miscellaneous         Section 3.01*. Certain Trustee Matters*  3 Section 3.02*. Continued Effect*  3 Section 3.03*. Provisions Binding on Company’s Successors*  3 Section 3.04*. Governing Law*  3 Section 3.05*. Counterparts*  3      Exhibit A A-1
 

 
     **FIFTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE**, dated as of February 9, 2009 (this “**SupplementalIndenture**”), between **EL PASO CORPORATION**, a Delaware corporation (the “**Company**”), and **HSBC BANKUSA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION**, a national banking association, as successor-in-interest to JPMorganChase Bank (formerly The Chase Manhattan Bank), as trustee under the Indenture referred to below(in such capacity, the “**Trustee**”).**RECITALS OF THE COMPANY**     WHEREAS, the Company and the Trustee are parties to an Indenture dated as of May 10, 1999 (asamended and supplemented from time to time, the “**Indenture**”), providing for the issuance from timeto time of one or more series of the Company’s unsecured debentures, notes or other evidences ofindebtedness (the “**Securities**”), the terms of which are to be determined as set forth in Section301 of the Indenture; and     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 901 of the Indenture, without the consent of any Holders, theCompany and the Trustee, at any time and from time to time, may enter into one or more indenturessupplemental to the Indenture to establish the form or terms of securities of any series aspermitted by Sections 201 and 301 of the Indenture; and     WHEREAS, pursuant to this Supplemental Indenture, the Company desires to create a new seriesof Securities under the Indenture, to be titled the 8.250% Senior Notes due 2016 in an initialaggregate principal amount of $500,000,000 (the “**Notes**”) and to establish the forms and the termsand conditions thereof;     WHEREAS, all action on the part of the Company necessary to authorize the issuance of theNotes under the Indenture and this Supplemental Indenture has been duly taken; and     WHEREAS, all acts and things necessary to make the Notes, when executed by the Company andauthenticated and delivered by the Trustee as provided in the Indenture and this SupplementalIndenture, the valid and binding obligations of the Company and to make this Supplemental Indenturea valid and binding agreement in accordance with the Indenture have been done and performed;     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, agreements and obligations set forth hereinand for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are herebyacknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree, for the equal and proportionate benefit of allHolders of the Notes, as follows:
1

 
ARTICLE 1
# Closed COVID Complaints 1231_22
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 3625, S. 3521, AND H.R. 4010

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged 
from further consideration of the following bills en bloc, and the 
Senate proceed to their immediate consideration: S. 3625, S. 3521, and 
H.R. 4010; that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc, the 
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and any 
statements related to the bills be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills.

                          ____________________
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVID A. GRIMALDI , Plaintiff Below, Appellant,

v. NEW CASTLE COUNTY , Defendant Below, Appellee. § § § No. 423 , 2018 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C.A. No. 15C

- 12

- 096 § § § §
Submitted: December 10 , 2018 Decided: December 11, 2018
O R D E R
This 11 th day of December, 2018, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, David Grimaldi , filed this appeal from (i) the Superior
Court’s order of August 18, 2016, dismissing five of the six causes of action that Grimaldi asserted against the appellee, New Castle County and (ii) the Superior Court’s order of July 13 , 2018, granting New Castle County’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining cause of action

. Grimaldi ’s opening brief was due to be filed by October 1 , 2018 . When Grimaldi did not file the brief, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a brief delinquency noti ce, dated October 8 , 2018, advising Grimaldi that the brief must be filed within seven days. Grimaldi did not respond to the brief delinquency notice and did not file the opening brief.2

(2) On October 18 , 2018, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice, by certified mail, directing Grimaldi to show cause w hy the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the opening brief. The notice to show cause directed
Grimaldi to respond within ten days and advised him that if he did not respond, dismissal of the appeal would be deemed to be unopposed. (3) The Oct ober 18 th notice to show cause was sent to the address that
Grimaldi provided in his notice of appeal. On November 26, 2018, t he postal service
returned the notice to show cause to the Clerk’s office with the notation, “Return to Sender, Attempted

- Not Know n, Unable to Forward.” On November 29, 2018, the
notice to show cause was resent by first class mail

. (4) The appellant having failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required ten

- day period, to file the open ing brief, or to report any change of address to the Court, dismissal of this action is deemed unopposed.
N OW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 29(b) and 3(b)(2), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice