alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 92-145 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1992 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

GEORGE A. COLLINS, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Meagher, 

The Honorable Roy C. Rodeghiero, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

George A. Collins, Pro Se, Townsend, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Elizabeth L. Griffing, Assistant Attorney General, 

Helena, Montana 

John V. Potter Jr., County Attorney, White Sulphur 

Springs, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: June 4, 1992 

JUN 3 0 1992 

&d s*?;fL CLERK OF SUi3W?:C,?E. COURT 

Decided: June 30, 1992 

STATE OF Iribii TlANA 
{ . ; 

Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

On November 1, 1991, the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, 

Meagher County, dismissed an appeal by the defendant from a justice 

court traffic conviction. Defendant appeals this order dismissing 

his appeal. We affirm. 

The dispositive issue in this case is whether the defendantls 

notice of appeal was timely. 

On August 29, 1991, the Meagher County Justice of the Peace 

convicted the defendant, George A. Collins, of several traffic 

violations. Subsequently, Mr. Collins filed his notice of appeal 

with the justice court. The record shows that the justice court 

received this notice on September 16, 1991. After hearing the 

matter, the Fourteenth Judicial District Court dismissed Mr. 

Collins1 appeal from justice court finding the appeal was untimely. 

Section 46-17-311(2), MCA, provides that a criminal defendant 

may appeal a justice court ruling to the district court by filing 

written notice of appeal within ten days after a judgment is 

rendered. Here, Mr. Collins filed his notice eighteen days after 

the justice court rendered judgment. We agree with the conclusion 

of the District Court that Mr. Collins1 notice of appeal was 

untimely. We hold the District Court properly dismissed this 

action. 

Affirmed. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 
-L 

4 - 

4 ,' 

with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the 

West Publishing Company.
Order issued May 31, 2013

S

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

________________________________________

No. 05-12-01152-CR

No. 05-12-01153-CR

________________________________________

ADAM GUERRA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

O R D E R

Before Justices FitzGerald, Murphy, and Lewis

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the February 20, 2013 motion of 

Celia M. Sams for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of 

the Court to remove Celia M. Sams as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the Clerk 

of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Adam Guerra, TDCJ 

No. 1801397, Rudd Unit, 2004 Lamesa Highway, Brownfield, Texas, 79316.

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00667]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities


Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; National 
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is 
hereby given that the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities 
will hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Domestic Indemnity Panel.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 17, 2022, from 
12:00 p.m. until adjourned.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held by videoconference originating at 
the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee 
Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506, 
(202) 606-8322; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#771201180e16030d1e043719121f59101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6d3c0d9cfd7c2ccdfc5f6d8d3de98d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is for panel 
review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for 
Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts 
and the Humanities, for exhibitions beginning on or after March 21, 
2022. Because the meeting will consider proprietary financial and 
commercial data provided in confidence by indemnity applicants, and 
material that is likely to disclose trade secrets or other privileged 
or confidential information, and because it is important to keep the 
values of objects to be indemnified and the methods of transportation 
and security measures confidential, I have determined that that the 
meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of 
section 552b of title 5, United States Code. I have made this 
determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's 
Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated 
April 15, 2016.

    Dated: January 11, 2022.
Samuel Roth,
Attorney-Advisor, National Endowment for the Humanities.
[FR Doc. 2022-00667 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 3 

 

Case: 1:17-cv-00754-TSB Doc #: 91-3 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 1775
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION (CINCINNATI)

Case No. 1:17-CV-00754

HAWES, et al.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC., 

and MACY'S WEST STORES, INC., 

 Defendants.

Video deposition of SARA HAWES, held in 

Buchalter, located at 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, 

Suite 1500, Los Angeles, California 90017, on 

Wednesday, February 12, 2020, commencing at 9:06 

a.m., before Sudny Gallardo, Certified Shorthand

Reporter, Number 14023, in and for the State of

California.

Case: 1:17-cv-00754-TSB Doc #: 91-3 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 1776
Video Deposition of Sara Hawes, 2/12/2020

35

1 Q. When is the last time that you bought bed 

2 sheets? 

3 A. Sometime last year. 

4 Q. From the time that you've moved out to 

5 California, how many times do you think you've 

6 purchased bed sheets? 

7 A. 10, 20. 

8 Q. So that would work out to somewhere between 

9 one to three times a year; does that sound right? 

10 A. Yeah, yes. 

11 Q. And the bed sheets that you've purchased, 

12 have those all been for use in your own home? 

13 A. Yes. 

14 Q. None of them were gifts for other people or 

15 anything like that? 

16 A. No. 

17 Q. When you buy bed sheets is there any 

18 particular kind you like to buy? 

19 A. Yes. 

20 Q. So describe to me the kind of bed sheets 

21 that you like to buy? 

22 A. I look for a certain hue of gray. That's 

23 what I look for first. Secondly, price and company 

24 name because I am familiar with, you know, I'm an 

25 avid consumer of sheets, and of course thread 

Case: 1:17-cv-00754-TSB Doc #: 91-3 Filed: 05/03/21 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 1777
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.24

                            SILICON IMAGE, INC.

                         EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN FOR

                      OCTOBER 1, 1999 TO JUNE 30, 2000

OBJECTIVE: Award executive staff members named below for achievement of
revenue growth and profitability.

SUMMARY: Named executive staff members will be eligible to receive a cash
bonus based on a percentage of their then current base salary.

Executives shall receive a bonus of X% of their base salary earned in the
nine-month period ended June 30, 2000. The X% will be determined based on a
matrix of revenue and income from operations to be approved by the
compensation committee of the Board of Directors.

The maximum payout will be equal to 65% of the base salary and the President
will receive an additional 50% of the calculated percentage (if VP payout
will be 20%, the President payout will be 30%).

DISTRIBUTION.

Bonus amounts will be paid as soon as reasonably possible following public
disclosure of the Company's Q2-2000 financial results. Participants must be
employed at the time of the distribution to be eligible for the payment,
unless otherwise determined by the Compensation Committee.

This Executive Bonus Plan may be modified or cancelled, at any time and for
any reason, at the sole discretion and by a majority of the Compensation
Committee. Eligibility for participation in the Executive Bonus Plan is not
evidence nor does it constitute a contract of employment between the Company
and the Named Executive.

This Executive Bonus Plan is not qualified under Section 401(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and is not subject to any provisions
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

NAME EXECUTIVE STAFF MEMBERS ARE:
     President and CEO - David Lee
     Named Executives reporting to the President: Dan Atler, Victor Da Costa,
          Parviz Khodi, Jalil Shaikh, Steve Tirado.


                                                                   Page 1 of 1
#### Roy B. MACK, Petitioner, v. Robert E. RILEY, Respondent.

(326 S. E. (2d) 650)

Supreme Court

Dec. 4, 1984.

ORDER

Petitioner requests the Court to issue a *writ of certiorari*to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in *Mack v. Riley,*282 S. C. 100, 316 S. E. (2d) 731 (App. 1984).

We grant the writ to review the question posed by the petitioner. Additionally, the parties shall also address the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the *365dismissal of the charge at the preliminary hearing did not terminate the prosecution.

The Appendix shall be docketed as the Transcript of Record as of the date of this order. Petitioner shall file eight additional copies of the Appendix by the deadline for filing the petitioner’s brief. The materials in the Appendix are not required to be certified copies. The parties are directed to file briefs in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, except only one original brief and nine copies shall be required. This matter shall proceed in conformity with the Court’s rules.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4369 

To allow the United States-Canada Transboundary Resource Sharing Understanding to be considered an international agreement for the purposes 

of section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2009 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. JONES, and Ms. 

PINGREE of Maine) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To allow the United States-Canada Transboundary Resource 

Sharing Understanding to be considered an international 

agreement for the purposes of section 304(e)(4) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

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 ‘‘International Fisheries 

5 Agreement Clarification Act’’. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4369 IH

1 SEC. 2. INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES AGREEMENTS. 

2 Section 304(e)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

3 Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

4 1854(e)(1)) is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(1)’’; and 

6 (2) by adding at the end thereof the following: 

7 ‘‘(B) The United States–Canada 

8 Transboundary Resource Sharing Understanding 

9 and other related Understandings, and decisions 

10 made under those Understandings, shall be taken 

11 into account for purposes of paragraph (4)(A)(i). 

12 Paragraph (4)(A)(ii) shall not apply to those por13 tions of stocks covered by such Understandings. 

14 Notwithstanding section 302(h)(6) of this title, fish15 ing level recommendations regarding rebuilding in 

16 any given year for such stocks may be exceeded as 

17 long as the fishing mortality level allows for progress 

18 toward rebuilding affected fish stocks, and over19 fishing is ended immediately according to the proce20 dures set forth in this subsection.’’. 

21 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

22 The amendments made by section 2 shall apply with 

23 respect to fishing years beginning after April 30, 2010. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

1

IN THE MATTER OF: 1

i CASE No.

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE 1

WARRANTS, APPLICATIONS, PEN j CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REGISTERS, AND NON- \ ELIZABETH A. PRESTON-DEAVERS

DISCLOSURE ORDERS IN THE |

CASES LISTED IN ATTACHMENT |

A

FILED UNDER SEAL

ORDER TO UNSEAL

Upon the Motion ofthe United States Attorney and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the Search and Seizure Warrants, Applications, Pen Registers, and NonDisclosure Orders and related documents in the cases listed in Attachment A in the above-entitled

matter, be unsealed.

Case: 2:17-mj-00747-KAJ Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 45
ATTACHMENT A:

2:17-l\/lJ-434 2:18-MJ-007 2:18-MJ-756 2:19-MJ-001 2:19-MJ-471

2:17-MJ-585 2;18-MJ-8 2:18-MJ-840 2;19-MJ-45 2:19-MJ-481

2;17-MJ-586 2:18-MJ-9 2:19-MJ-121 2:19-MJ-498

2:17-MJ-587 2:18-MJ-10 2:19-MJ-122 2:19-MJ-510

2:17-MJ-588 2:18-MJ-17 2:19-MJ-127 2:19-MJ-512

2:17-MJ-589 2;18-MJ-51 2:19-MJ-153 2:19-MJ-527

2:17-MJ-617 2:18-MJ-61 2:19-MJ-174 2:19-MJ-528

2:17-MJ-644 2:18-MJ-92 2:19-MJ-175 2:19-MJ-553

2:17-MJ-676 2:lS-MJ-205 2:19-MJ -191 2:19-MJ-560

2:17-MJ-677 2:18-MJ-213 2:19-MJ-255 2;19-MJ-561

2:17-MJ-678 2:18-MJ-232 2:19-MJ-265 2:19-MJ-562

2:17-MJ-679 2:18-MJ-326 2:19-MJ-266 2;19-MJ-563

2:17-MJ-696 2;18-MJ-355 2:19-MJ-272 2:19-MJ-564

2:17-MJ-713 2:18-MJ-379 2:19-MJ-273 2:19-MJ-570

2;17-MJ-714 2:18-MJ-397 2:19-MJ-276

2;17-MJ-715 2:18-MJ-398 2:19-MJ-290

2;17-MJ-747 2:18-MJ-404 2:19-MJ-291

2;17-MJ-758 2:18-MJ-411 2:19-MJ-320

2;17-MJ-759 2:18-MJ-429 2:19-MJ-348

2:17-MJ-761 2:18-MJ-434 2:19-MJ-349

2:17-MJ-762 2:18-MJ-460 2:19-MJ-379

2:17-MJ-782 2:18-MJ-498 2:19-MJ-414

2:17-MJ-791 2:18-MJ-512

2:18-MJ-515

2:18-MJ-532

2:19-MJ-460

Case: 2:17-mj-00747-KAJ Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 46
Director Arrangements Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 

DIRECTOR ARRANGEMENTS AGREEMENT 

THIS DIRECTOR ARRANGEMENTS AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) dated as of October 2, 2015 is between Google Inc., a
Delaware corporation (“Google”), and Alphabet Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Alphabet”).
 RECITALS

 WHEREAS, Google has previously entered into offer letters with certain of the current members of Google’s Board of
Directors (the “Offer Letters) in respect of such individuals’ service to Google; 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors
of Alphabet has determined that it is in the best interests of Alphabet for Alphabet enter into an agreement with Google providing for Alphabet’s performance of obligations under the Offer Letters as if Alphabet, and not Google, were the
signatory thereto, from and after the date hereof, with Google having no further obligations under the Offer Letters from and after the date hereof; 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Google has determined that it is in the best interests of Google to agree to enter into such an
agreement; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, Google and Alphabet hereby agree as follows: 
 SECTION 1. OFFER LETTERS 

(a) Alphabet hereby agrees to assume to perform any and all obligations to the individual signatories under the Offer Letters from and after
the date hereof in accordance with the terms of such Offer Letters as if Alphabet, and not Google, were the signatory thereto and all references to Google therein were replaced with references to Alphabet, and from and after the date hereof, Google
shall have no further obligations under the Offer Letters. 
 (b) Each of Google and Alphabet agree that the individual signatories to the
Offer Letters and their heirs and assignees shall be express third-party beneficiaries of this Section 1 of this Agreement and entitled to enforce directly such section and the contractual rights against Alphabet under their Offer Letters
granted pursuant to this Section 1. 
 SECTION 2. MISCELLANEOUS 

(a) Each of Google and Alphabet will, from time to time and at all times hereafter, upon every reasonable request to do so by any other party
hereto, make, do, execute and deliver, or cause to be made, done, executed and delivered, all such further acts, deeds, assurances and things as may be reasonably required or necessary in order to further implement and carry out the intent and
purpose of this Agreement. 
 [Signatures Follow on Next Page] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Director Arrangements Agreement as of the
date first written above. 
  

			
	GOOGLE INC.
	a Delaware corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christine Flores

	Name:	 	Christine Flores
	Title:	 	Assistant Secretary
	
	ALPHABET INC.
	a Delaware corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kent Walker

	Name:	 	Kent Walker
	Title:	 	Assistant Secretary



  
 2
Exhibit 32.2

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 First American Scientific Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Calvin Kantonen, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 21st day of September, 2005.





| | /s/ Calvin Kantonen                    
| | ---------------------------------------
| | Calvin Kantonen
Chief Financial Officer













---
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEMBO CAMARA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72365

Agency No. A078-675-797

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 17, 2012**

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Dembo Camara, a native and citizen of Mauritania, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JAN 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72365

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001),

and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

because Camara omitted from his asylum application that government forces shot

and killed his parents and sister at the time of his own detention, see AlvarezSantos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003), and his testimony was vague

and lacking in detail, see Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999)

(level of specificity appropriate consideration in adverse credibility determination). 

In the absence of credible testimony, Camara’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Camara’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be

not credible, and he points to no other evidence that shows it is more likely than

not he would be tortured if returned to Mauritania, his CAT claim also fails. See

id. at 1156-57. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
----- Forwarded by Richard J Ambrose/AE/DuPont on 05/21/2010 09:33 AM

-----

From

Miederhoff.Eric@epamail.epa.gov

Date

05/19/2010 01:27 PM

To

Richard J Ambrose/AE/DuPont@DuPont

cc

Costello.Kevin@epamail.epa.gov

Subject

Re: Fw: proposed meeting to discuss chlorsulfuron developmental and

reproductive toxicity

Rick,

I forwarded the two concerns from your toxicologist to HED and they

provided these responses:

Point 1, regarding our conclusions that the visceral malformations were

not an effect of treatment. Since malformations were observed in one

fetus per litter in 3 litters, and the specific malformations were

different in ea ch fetus, we do not believe that they are treatment

related. The DER and other reviews in which this study was discussed

need to be updated to remove these effects from those considered adverse

and treatment

- related at the LOAEL. The only developmental e ffect of

potential concern is the decreased fetal body weight, and our concern

for this effect is lessened because it occurs in the presence of

decreased maternal body weight.

Point 2, regarding our opinion of TRI's listing chlorsulfuron as a

reproductive toxicant. We defer to TRI whether the chemical should be

listed as a reproductive toxicant or not since they are clearly more

cognizant of their criteria for listing than is OPP. The following

reviews of reproductive toxicity are the most recent we have in our

database and may be useful to the registrant and TRI.

(See attached file: 46493201.DER.doc)(See attached file: D313366.doc)

Eric Miederhoff

Chemical Review Manager

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Pesticide Re

- eva luation Division (7508P)

(703) 347

- 8028

Fax (703) 308

- 7070