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

No. DA 23-0585

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

TAYLOR JAY DAMM,

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 June 14, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 6 2024

05/06/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0585
Order filed July 25, 2017 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00006-CV

____________

JASON MICHAEL MERRILL, Appellant

V.

SPRINT WASTE SERVICES LP AND JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ, Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-60963

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of Plaintiff's Exhibits 4, 5, 

6, 97, 176, 185, and Defendant's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 136, 138, videos.
The clerk of the 61st District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this 

court the original of Plaintiff's Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 97, 176, 185, and Defendant's 

Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 136, 138, videos, on or before August 03, 2017. The Clerk of this 

court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver 

it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of 

inspection, to return the original of Plaintiff's Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 97, 176, 185, and 

Defendant's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 136, 138, videos, to the clerk of the 61st District 

Court.

PER CURIAM
# FILED
July 23, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SHVILLE MA RCH SESSION , 1995

STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) No. 01C01-9410 -CC-00340 Ap pellee ) ) COFFEE COUNTY vs. ) ) Hon. JOHN W. ROLLINS, Judge ROSIE LEE WOOTEN, ) ) (Voluntar

y M anslaughter

) Appellant )

DISSENTING OPINION
I respectfully

disagree. Upon de novo review , I would grant probat ion. The facts of this case are unquestionably tragic. The appellant and the victim co-habited for appr

oximately

twelve years. Their relati onship was characteri zed by exces sive dri nking and, on occasion, v iolence. The appel lant contends that she stabbed and killed the victim after he came home d runk, threatened to kill her, and "choke[d] me until I coul d not breathe." H owever , assuming th ese facts support the appellant’s inca rceration, the record also reflects th at the appellant is currently eighty- one years of ag e. As noted by the majority , she suffers from primary d egenerative dementia of the Alz heimer's ty pe, senile onset with depres sion, de mentia associa ted with al coholis m, and alcohol abuse. Although the appellant was found sane, psychological testing revealed si gnificant mental confusion and diso rganization which are progressive in nature. The appellant is totally de pendent upon her daug hter for primar y care. Finally , she has no pri or criminal hi story. Accordingl y, incarceration of the appel lant would serve no public purpose. Sentencing principles involving deterrence, the need to protect society by

restraini ng a defendant w ho has a long history of criminal cond uct, and rehabilit ation simply have no rel evance in th is case. SeeTenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-102(3)(A)-(C)( 1990); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1) (1990). Indeed, from the record, i t is doubtful that the appellant, i f confined to the Depar tment of2

Correction , would realize that she was, in fact, impris oned. Accordi ngly, ba sed upon the extraordinary

circumstanc es presented, I find probation to be appropriate.

____________________________________ DAVID G. HA YES, Judge
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 27, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00017

- CR

James MOODY, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 413867 The Honorable Robert Behrens, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On September 6, 2016, we ordered Pat Montgomery, counsel for appellant, to file a copy of his letter to the appellant, James Moody, demonstrating counsel has complied with the requirements of Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). No response or motion for extension of time has been filed. Our records reflect that Mr. Montgomery has

been contacted twice abo ut filing proof of his compliance with Kelly . Our records show Mr. Montgomery represented to this court he would file a copy of his letter to Moody by September 21, 2016. Mr. Montgomery has not filed a copy of the letter.

We therefore order Pat Montgomer y to file, by September 29, 2016 , proof that he has sent a letter to Moody (1) notifying Moody that he has filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw and enclose copies of the documents, (2) informing Moody of his right to review the appellate record and file a pro se brief, (3) informing Moody of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review should the court of appeals determine the appeal is frivolous, and (4) showing counsel has “take[n] concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the p rocess of actuating [appellant’s] right to review the appellate record, if that is what [appellant]

wishes.” Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Ex parte Owens , 206

S.W.3d 670

- 74 n. 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Meza v. State , 206 S.W. 3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Counsel is advised that if he fails to comply with this order, the appeal will be abated for an abandonment hearing.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of September, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### B. H. Griffin, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. American Fruit Growers, Inc., a corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

144 So. 308.

Division A.

*170Decision filed November 3, 1932.

*Swearingen & Wilson*and *Johnson, Bosarge & Allen,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Maguire <& Yoorhis,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment;' it is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Buford, C.J. and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
No. 10-5436.

#### David C. Ulloa, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 922, 131 S. Ct. 296,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7276.

178 L. Ed. 2d 194,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, denied.

Same case below, 180 Cal. App. 4th 601, 102 Cal. Rptr. 3d 743.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Epifanio Santiago, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 416]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from judgments of the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel Conviser, J.), rendered July 1, 2014, and July 29, 2014, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgments so appealed from be and the same are hereby af*436firmed.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
# Oct. 1 recognized as DLA’s foundation date despite debate

/ Published Oct. 1, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
The Defense Logistics Agency celebrates its birthday Oct. 1, but other dates could have just as easily been chosen. Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara decided he needed a supply agency Aug. 31, 1961, and his office issued a directive for one Sept. 12. Other possibilities include Nov. 6, when the Office of the Secretary of Defense issued DLA a charter, and Jan. 1, 1962, the day the agency received supply centers from the services. DLA’s official birthday is Oct. 1, however, because that’s when Army Lt. Gen. Andrew T. McNamara assumed duties as the agency’s first director.

Three other reasons support the Oct. 1 date. First, the Sept. 12 directive set Oct. 1 as the agency’s first day of operations. Lt. Gen. McNamara also signed General Order No. 1 Oct. 1 and the Armed Forces Supply Support Center transferred to the agency Oct. 1.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense raised doubts about DLA’s formation date when it was reported as being Nov. 6 to a congressional committee and the author of an executive department manual in early 1962. OSD’s position was that DSA’s charter, released Nov. 6, included the phrase “is hereby established.” Lt. Gen. McNamara disagreed with the wording, believing it called into question the legality of the decisions he and his staff made during the agency’s first weeks. At his urging, DSA Historian Robert W. Coakley persuaded John A. Wylie, administrative assistant to Secretary McNamara, to address a memorandum to the DSA public affairs officer confirming the agency’s birthdate as Oct. 1, not Nov. 6.

DLA has celebrated Oct. 1 ever since. Today marks the agency’s 59th birthday. In war, peace, and even the current pandemic, DLA has provided supplies to troops at home and abroad, and the nation during natural disasters and emergency declarations.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 12

- 00192

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 1052722

Style: Irvin White

v Angela Stanlee White and the Office of the Attorney General of Texas

Date motion filed * : September 28, 2012

Type of motion: Motion for Termination of Wage Withholding Order

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: n/a

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

Judge's signature: Chief Justice Sherry Radack

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown

Date: March 21, 2013
Order entered April 24, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00179

- CV

THOMAS C. DAVIS, Appellant

V.

L. LOUISE DAVIS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicia l District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 13843



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s April 22, 2019 motion for extension of time to file his

brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief, received on April 22, 2019, fil ed

as of the date of this order.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries

Corgi Classics Ltd., United Kingdom
Corgi Classics Holdings Ltd., United Kingdom
Corgi Classics Inc., United States of America
Icon Collectibles Ltd., United Kingdom
Lledo Collectibles Ltd., United Kingdom
Dongguan Xinda Giftware Co. Ltd., Mainland China
Guangzhou Jin Yi Advertising Co. Ltd., Mainland China
Hua Yang Holdings Co. Ltd., Cayman Islands
Hua Yang Printing Holdings Co. Ltd., Hong Kong
Luen Tat Model Design Co. Ltd., The British Virgin Islands
Luen Tat Mould Manufacturing Ltd., The British Virgin Islands
Onchart Industrial Ltd., The British Virgin Islands
Shenzhen Huaxuan Printing Product Co. Ltd., Mainland China
Wealthy Holdings Ltd., The British Virgin Islands
Zindart Ltd., Bermuda
Bassett Lowke Ltd., United Kingdom
Corgi Sales Ltd., United Kingdom
Corgi Toys Ltd., United Kingdom
Blow-ko Ltd., United Kingdom
Bassett Lowke (Railways) Ltd., United Kingdom
Corgi Collectors Ltd., United Kingdom
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                           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 Annual Report of Covansys Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin C. Clague,
Chief Executive Officer and President 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/ Martin C. Clague

Martin C. Clague
Chief Executive Officer and President
March 12, 2003
Exhibit  31.2

                        CERTIFICATIONS  UNDER  SECTION  302

I,  Barrett  Evans,  certify  that:

    1.  I  have  reviewed  this  annual  report  of  NeWave,  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 officer(s) 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)  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

         c)  disclosed  in  this  report any change in the registrant's internal
control  over  financial  reporting  that  occurred during the registrant's most
recent  fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  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 officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on  our  most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the  registrant's  auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent  functions):

         a)  all  significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or  operation  of internal control 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:  April  13,  2004


/s/  Barrett  Evans
-----------------
Barrett  Evans
Interim  Chief  Financial  Officer


<PAGE>
2017-0578.

#### State ex. rel. Zimpfer v. Jackson Twp. Police Dept.

In Mandamus. On answer of respondents. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Neill, J., dissents.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED PURSUANT
TO 18
U.S.C. '1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. '1350, I, the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended August 30, 2003 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

/S/ NORBERT E. WOODHAMS Norbert E. Woodhams
March 9, 2004

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. '1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc. (the Company),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge,that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the quarter ended August 30, 2003 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/S/ PAMELA M. WITTERS Pamela M. Witters
March 9, 2004

30
AOClENl:llM 1 JU'IJl 25, 1988

'!he current Me100rarrlum ofAgree.Irent between the state ofwash.i.n:jton ard the united states Envirorunenta.l Protection 

### kJercyRegion

## x, dated June 1986, is SUWlemmtedby this hkierdum 1. All tents defined 

### in the existirq Mem:>rarrlum of Agreement shall have the sarre meani.rqs.for

### purposes ofthis Mle.rrlum 1. Availability of Information 

### to the Public Ecolcxy agrees, subj

### ect to restrictions inpooed by exi..sti.n;J state law, 

### to make the fullest possible disclosure ofrecords 

### to the public 

### in a

## manner equivalent 

### to 40

## em Part 2. 

## nus shall incltk1e all information available 

### in Ecolcxy's records and files, subject 

### to claims ofconfidentiality ard specific statutoty exenptions. state law specifies procedures for providirq information 

### to the public, ard these procedures closely parallel 40

## em Part 2. '!he procedures generally specify a formal requestmechanism, 

### rot do allC7w' that the public will be able 

### to OOtain 

### certain material on a rootine basis, withc:ut a fonnal request. 'Ibese materials incltk1e state regulations, administrative staffmanuals affectin;J the rm>lic, statements of departItental policy, and final opinions or orders in case adju:lications. In sane 

### respects, state law is not as specific as 40 CFR part 2, so Ecolcxy agrees, inpartio.1lar, 

### to ilrpleroont the follC7w'i.rq pl:'OCE!dures: 1. EcoICXJY agrees that, ifa p.Jblic disclosure request results 

### Ina need 

### to resolve a claimofb.lsiness confidentiality, ard the"-claim cannot be resolved within the twenty day response time, then EcoICXJYwill notify the requestor that the information is not aVailable because of failure 

### to resolve the business confidentiality claim

.. 2. EcoICXJY agrees that notices of deni.al, ofpublic disclosure shall incl\rle discussion of awlicable ju:licial cq:peal. procedures. state law does not establish a 

### statute of lilnitations on appeals, so notices ofdenial will not disolSS statutes of limitations. Ecolcxy agrees 

### to maintain a Loqor file of such denials of requests for infonnation. 3. Ecolcxy agrees that, in situations where fees for rm>lic records might J'X)nnally be assessed, ifEcolcxy detennines that theMemxardum of 1qreement July 25, 1988 Page 2 . information**~d** be ofprilnary 

### benefit

### to the general pmlic, then the fees 

### may be waived or reduced. Fsquests fran the press and p.1blic interest

### groups may also be subject to waiver or reductial of fees. 

# c

S'IM'E OFWASHDCIt'N IEPARIMENl' OF EX:Qr.c:x:;y 

## u. s. Pro'W::rlOO**~,** RmICN X



### By:
Director, Department ofEcology 

# e/r/eg

,

. fm57V1 

### Title: Acting Regional Administrator



# o
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

          I, Timothy A. Dawson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Mississippi Chemical Corporation (the "Company") hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, dated as of February 17, 2004, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.

          I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
No. 09-11414.

#### Roger Timothy Mezzulo, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 879, 131 S. Ct. 194,

178 L. Ed. 2d 117,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7023,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tory Bell, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 878]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered May 13, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of promoting a sexual performance by a child as a sexually motivated felony, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously modified, on the law, to reflect that defendant was sentenced to a definite term of one year, and otherwise affirmed. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (same court and Justice), entered on or about January 7, 2015, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the court’s assessment of 30 and 20 points, respectively, under the risk factors for having three or more victims and being a stranger to the victim, based on defendant’s viewing of over 80 images and videos of child pornography on his computer, despite the fact that defendant did not have any contact with the victims *(see People v Labarbera,*140 AD3d 463, 464 [1st Dept 2016] *lv denied*28 NY3d 902 [2016]).

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]). Defendant did not demonstrate any mitigating factors not already taken into account in the risk assessment instrument that would warrant a downward departure, given the egregiousness of the underlying offense, which included not only the possession but the dissemination of child pornography.

The sentence should be modified to the extent indicated in order to effectuate the intent of the plea agreement, which provided that defendant would receive a one-year definite term *667of incarceration.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.
No. 10-121.

#### Linda Lou Stem, et al., Petitioners v. Iris Edwards Wix, et al.

562 U.S. 894, 131 S. Ct. 299,

178 L. Ed. 2d 144,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6054.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Division, denied.

Same case below, 316 S.W.3d 599.
TS-EMLA50 

### I 60/70

### I 

### so Attachment #5 Pt. 2, Sec. A, 2 Worker/Occupational Exposure Information on the New Chemical Substance at Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter-Manufacture andProcessing