alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0013 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KELLY BEVERLY BALL,

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 January 28, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 15 2021

12/15/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0013
99-1142.

#### OHIC Ins. Co. v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Assn.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss by Ohio Insurance Guaranty Association. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.

On motion to amend complaint in mandamus. Motion granted.

On request for oral argument. Request denied.

Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
WAIVER AND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 EXHIBIT 10.3 
 WAIVER AND AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

WHEREAS, Kensey Nash Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Todd M. DeWitt (the
“Executive”) entered into that certain Employment Agreement, entered into as of January 1, 2009 (the “Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement; 

WHEREAS, the Agreement may be supplemented or modified in a written document signed by both the Company and the Executive pursuant
to Paragraph 19 of the Agreement; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Paragraph 19 of the Agreement, and for
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, both the Company and Executive agree as follows: 
 1. The Agreement is hereby amended, effective as of August 1, 2011, in the following respects: 
 a. Paragraph 3(g) of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the word “Reserved.” 

b. Exhibit D to the Agreement, Excise Tax Gross-up Payment, shall be deleted in its entirety. 

c. Exhibit E to the Agreement, General Release Agreement, shall be renamed as “Exhibit D to the
Agreement, General Release Agreement.” 
 d. Each reference to Exhibit E in the Agreement and
the Exhibits thereto shall be amended to read “Exhibit D.” 
 2. The Executive hereby waives any and all rights
under Paragraph 3(g) and Exhibit D to the Agreement, as such rights existed prior to the foregoing amendments. 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the 18th day of July, 2011. 
  

			
	 /s/ Todd M. DeWitt

	Todd M. DeWitt
	
	KENSEY NASH CORPORATION:
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Douglas G. Evans, P.E.

		 	Douglas G. Evans, P.E.
		
	Title:	 	Chief Operating Officer
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 15

- 00031

- CR

CHARLES FRANCIS WILLIAMS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 30,068

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O R D E R Our review of the court reporter’s record and clerk’s record in this case indicates that both such records contain “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, social security number, tax identification number or similar government

- issued personal identification number,” as well as “a birth date, a home address, and the name of any pe rson who was a minor at the time the offense was committed

. ” T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 9.10(a)(1), ( 3). The clerk’s record includes government

- issued personal identification numbers, and volume eight of the reporter’s record includes the names of persons who were minors at the time the offense was committed. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b).
Rule 9.10(f) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(f). Therefore, because the appellate record contain s sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(f), to seal volume eight of the electronically filed reporter’s record and the entirety of the electronically filed clerk’s record in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
Date: November 5 , 2015
• SBCBBT ,.~ 

COIFIDBHIAL "RE.ID:A6~571 RES!RJ •.:.r ~~ .. 

~D}PJ~~ 

Ol'PICE or TBB DIR. or COlllJllICATIOIS 

!O PROM - - V. P. Prledman................ ... -: lark Rboada.................... c:>" 

=v'Dapt L. D. C&l11•hoa ......... ...... .> 

Lt. !. P. Pavoett ••••••••••••• - u T. B • nu.rt•••••••••••••••••••• n...- --

p~R. W. Pettenglll •••••••••••••• _-----

,,.-m. M 1 4 1 l•r ••••••••••••••••••••• 

---z. c. P1abel •••••••••••••••••• ---- :::Y. Oeddea •••••••••••••••••••• :::::: 

Student Ott1cea 

__ Capt B. C. Atchison••••••••··-----

Lt. R. C- Allen ••••••••••••••• --- Lt. J. G. Pelland ••••••••••••• ~ 

- - Aa cUaouaaed 

Concurrence a 1'9queate4 or colml9Dta ~ 

Intoration I: torvarcU.ng Information I: retUPD 

Inror1Btion I: tile 

Reoomend&tlon 

s1snature it approved Yov action b7 

Into upon vbich to baae replJ' 

eclassified and a roved for release b NSA on 04-24-2014 ursuant to E. 0. 1352 

29 Oct 46 
REF ID:A65571 9 ,3 F·~ t., r 

PM l0-15. Enen11 Bquipment lntel11gen0e 

A8•22 1.n-1• ;s l'•b 4T 8el'vice 

l. !t 18 nueee"ted tha.t the pror>osed !ntel'l'OGBtiNl team 

sboul't p!'Od.M fnr the ~etold 1.'ltereste Of ASA bf repreeentlDs R•-1'Cb wit~ t>Avel"pment EUI vell BS 3eourlt,- and o..,.t1cms D1Y1-

a1ona. »eoauae ot UJ.e ;potential 1ntaire8t of' fteMUOb aDCl Dnelop- wt. Sn •11 tnea ot OQG&malcattona equ~t ~ 1• a poaatbl• cU.atlnoUon ~t S.o."afpto-mste.1&1 Vh1ch miRht tlttpi-S.ve AM of nee~G .tn.i"o.mat1on. lt raa7 ~ poSntod out that tut.ure lmr• 

1•Ml tn!Tic c.m1}'e1tt vtll •'e !D19r.~f.11.te17 concemed V1th all '1J)ea 

or enem;- eomur,:.oa.t1on& eqw.pment because ot the 1Dtel11geDce po'ent1al tram enP.mt 19.d&i-, re.Oar ~. lntl'6-Md oannu.'\ieattona.1 

eto. '1\ese :!ntOJ1e&ts sboula t.'f.t inel•lf!ec in the nco:_le ot thA A~A 

Ua1Gon Section 2."J!CJn1oo. Ift 8ftJ caae# olose ~t1en '::etveen 

the A1.'lrfi' &tourit:; Liaison •teams and t'boee ~ the tiie,ne.1 Corpe· ~houl~ te tt.e r.llc. 

2. It !s reconuended tberefozie tbat the nmbw or oft1ofU's 

1D pi...-ncrol)b •0re;a.m.aauon• be inol'eaaed from tvo to tbziee and 

U.• U. qs11f1cat1ona ot th!• tb1N ottioer be that al a ca.Nld.OGt1on ~ .. 

;. It 1• f'vtbel' reeopl!!Md.ed that 1n i'm'&£ft\Ph "Dut!ee" 

a. t1ret •entenee be·&utJ18Dted b)T tbe tollowln8 wor4e& •tntepat.ed crn>to-ecwm>Scat1on equipnent, illcl~ ctnbcnr and. 

oJ.tu,, and all apeQ1&! et.itmnmication 9KlnB. ~, · 

~· I ' I t 

• 

..... 

~ 

.... : ..
#### The State vs. Brady and another, imp.

*December 19, 1884*

*January 13, 1885.*

*Appeal to S. C.: Judgment against sureties in criminal case.*

The sureties in a recognizance given on an appeal from the sentence of a justice of the peace, may *appeal*from a judgment rendered against the defendant and such sureties under sec. 4717, R. S.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Richland*County.

The defendant Terrence Brady was prosecuted and tried before a justice of the peace for a misdemeanor, and convicted thereof. He appealed to the circuit court, and *James Brady*and *Milan Van Morn*became his sureties on such appeal. He was tried in the circuit court and again convicted, and thereupon judgment "was entered, imposing upon him a fine of $50 and costs, amounting in all to $234.75. Judgment for $100 of that amount (that being the sum specified in the recognizance) was entered'at the same time against such sureties, pursuant to sec. 4717, R; S. The sureties appealed to this court from such judgment against them, and the attorney general now moves to dismiss the appeal for the alleged reason that it does not lie in such a case.

*M. W.*Ghynoweth, Assistant Attorney General, for the respondent.

[No appearance for the appellants.]

LyoN, J.

Had an action been brought against the appellants on their recognizance, and judgment recovered against them therein, there can be no doubt that they could bring the case here for review, by appeal. Although the action would arise out of a criminal prosecution and conviction, it would be an action on the contract or obligation contained in the recognizance. Of course, the judgment in such an action.is appealable.

Ye think the essential nature and incidents of a judg*130ment summarily rendered against the sureties under sec. 4711, R. S., without bringing a new action, is the same. True, in form therais but one judgment against the defendant who was convicted of the misdemeanor and his sureties — the appellants. But in substance and legal effect there are two judgments: one against the accused, imposing a penalty for a crime, upon which he may be imprisoned; the other against his sureties, sounding in contract, and upon which no execution can go against the bodies of the debtors.

No doubt the convicted party would be, compelled to resort to his writ of error or certiorari, in order to obtain a review by this court of the judgment against him; but we are clearly of the opinion that the sureties may obtain such review of the judgment against them by appeal. On this motion we decide no other point in the case.

*By the*Court.— The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

The appeal was dismissed by stipulation March 31, 1885.
AnN!s 55/66 

•• ee 

........ rm ms ••• or AnACs 

leaoetiM CCJmm1cat1cn rm.111fP""O" Bad.10 Intercept 

Be~ ot the ~ted State&. 

l. n. 1DClOWN 1a tCll"Wal'684 tor )'our iAtonaaUOD end 

IDcl ..... l. \"- ~U'I ~LO_) 

llote lQ' tm Secretariee to tbe Jbldera of J oC.S. 2010/46, 

MW. l' ~ ~I Cogy Bo. . 

AJSACa 55/f» 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-15-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

I..___________ __ 

-
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of BCT International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q of the period ended May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael R. Hull, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



/s/    MICHAEL R. HULLMichael R. Hull Chief Financial Officer July 14, 2003
Exhibit
23.1

Consent of Registered Independent Public
Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and
StockholdersRevlon, Inc.:

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-116160) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-128815) on Form S-3 of Revlon,
Inc. of our reports dated March  1,  2006, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Revlon, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December  31,  2005 and 2004, and the related statements of
operations, stockholders' deficiency and comprehensive loss and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December  31,  2005 and the related financial statement
schedule, and our report on management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December  31,  2005, which reports appear in the
December  31,  2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Revlon,
Inc.




New
York, New YorkMarch  2,
2006

---
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




ARCHWAY MARKETING HOLDINGS, INC.




	 	 	 
	 

	 	October 31, 2008






Union Street Acquisition Corp.

102 South Union Street

Alexandria, VA 22314




Ladies and Gentlemen:




     Reference is made to the letter agreement dated September 14, 2008 pursuant to which we agreed
to pay to Union Street Acquisition Corp. (“USQ”) a fee of $750,000 upon the closing of the
transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated September 14, 2008, by and
among Archway Marketing Holdings, Inc. (“HoldCo”), Archway Marketing Acquisition, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of HoldCo (“MergerSub”), Argenbright, Inc. and Archway Marketing Services,
Inc. (“Archway”), whereby MergerSub will merge with and into Archway with Archway continuing as the
surviving entity.



     In consideration of our additional efforts and risks related to the transactions described
above arising from the significant adverse changes in the financing and economic environment in
recent weeks and the attendant difficulties, expenses and terms of obtaining reasonable financing
for these transactions, you hereby agree that the amount of the above-referenced fee shall be
reduced from $750,000 to $250,000 and shall be payable upon the closing, but only upon the closing,
of a transaction whereby MergerSub (or a related or affiliated entity) will merge with and into (or
otherwise acquire) Archway with Archway continuing as the surviving entity.



	 	 	 
	 

	 	Archway Marketing Holdings, Inc.
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	By: /s/ James S. Hoch
	 

	 	Name: James S. Hoch
	 

	 	Title: President






Accepted and Agreed

as of the date

first written above:




Union Street Acquisition Corp.




By: /s/ Clay Perfall

Name: Clay Perfall

Title: Chief Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 7, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 02-41063

_______________

IN THE MATTER OF:

MARK A. EDWARDS,

Debtor.

MARK A. EDWARDS,

AppellantCross-Appellee,

VERSUS

HARDESTY COMPANY, INC.,

DOING BUSINESS AS MID-CONTINENT CONCRETE CO.,

AppelleeCross-Appellant.

_________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

_________________________
2

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and

CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

IT IS ORDERED that appellantcross-appellee’s amended motion

for permission to file an

answer to appellee-crossappellant’s petition for panel

rehearing is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that appelleecross-appellant’s motion for

permission to file a reply to

appellant-cross-appellee’s

answer to the petition for

rehearing is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that the

petition for rehearing is

GRANTED. The opinion issued

on May 21, 2003, is VACATED,

and this matter is REMANDED to

the district court, which shall

remand to the bankruptcy court

with direction that the

bankruptcy court vacate its

order and dismiss the case as

moot.

* 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                   262,644
<SECURITIES>                              33,992
<RECEIVABLES>                          7,085,873
<ALLOWANCES>                             452,007
<INVENTORY>                            7,813,674
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      22,184,832
<PP&E>                                 9,502,469
<DEPRECIATION>                         4,488,528
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        24,901,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 13,926,422
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  74,443
<OTHER-SE>                             9,337,246
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          24,901,707
<SALES>                               36,240,901
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      36,240,901
<CGS>                                 26,701,669
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         26,701,669
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       8,574,762
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       834,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          130,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      130,058
<DISCONTINUED>                        (2,394,926)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                          (2,264,868)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .02


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gregory D. Hartman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Biomet, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
   defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
   registrant and have:

  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us 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 registrant'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 changes in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting that occured during the registrant's most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
   our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting,
   to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board
   of directors:

  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting.

Date: 1/13/2004                                /s/  Gregory D. Hartman
      ---------                                -----------------------
                                               Gregory D. Hartman
                                               Senior Vice President - Finance
                                               and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 21.1



PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.



SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                  |  |                             
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Name                                              |  | Jurisdiction of Organization
|PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.                |  | Delaware                    
|                                                  | 
|International Pet Supplies and Distribution, Inc. |  | California                  
|                                                  | 
|PETCO Southwest, Inc.                             |  | California                  
|                                                  | 
|Pet Concepts International                        |  | California                  
|                                                  | 
|PM Management Incorporated                        |  | California                  
|                                                  | 
|PETCO Southwest, L.P.                             |  | California                  
|                                                  | 
|E-Pet Services                                    |  | California                  
|                                                  | 
|E-Pet Services, LLC                               |  | Virgnia                     
|                                                  | 
|17187 Yukon Inc.                                  |  | Canada
### The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of Minnesota.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3128

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota Benny Council, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 5, 1997 Filed: April 15, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

BennyCouncil pleaded guilty to making false statements during th e purchase of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Th e presentence report (PSR) recommended a Guidelines range of 33-41 months, including a four-leve l enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 2K2.1(b)(5) (1995). The district court adopted the PSR, bu t 1 departed downward based on the

### -2-

government's motion under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (1995) , sentencing Council to 15 months imprisonment. On appeal, Council challenges the section 2K2.1(b)(5) enhanceme nt and the go vernment's support of the enhancement at the sentencing hearing , claiming such support constituted a breach of th e plea agreement. Without application of the four-level section 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement, Council's total offense level of 14 and his category III criminal history score woul d have yiel ded a Guidelines sentencing range of 21 to 27 months. Becaus e Council 's 15-month sentence represents a downward departure from tha t range, his sentence i s unreviewable. See United States v. Baker , 64 F.3d 439, 44 1 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Wyatt , 26 F.3d 863, 864 (8t h Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.