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

No. DA 23-0178

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SHAWN WAYNE MALATARE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Shawn Wayne Malatare has appealed from the January 23, 2023,

Judgment of the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, Cause No. 

DC-21-150. The parties, by and through their respective counsel, now stipulate and 

jointly move for an order dismissing this appeal and remanding this matter to the 

district court. The parties specifically stipulate that Malatare should be resentenced 

to the sentence set forth in the plea agreement entered into by the Lake County 

Attorney’s Office and Malatare, which was filed on September 27, 2022. 

Based on this stipulation, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Twentieth Judicial 

District Court, Lake County, with instructions for the district court to resentence 

Malatare pursuant to the September 2022 plea agreement. 

IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS ORDERED that REMITTITUR shall issue IMMEDIATELY UPON 

REMAND.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record 

and to the Honorable John Mercer, presiding judge due to the Honorable Deborah 

K. Christopher’s retirement. 

DATED this ____ day of June, 2024.

06/17/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0178
____________________________

____________________________

____________________________

____________________________

____________________________

Justices

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 17 2024
#### In the Matter of C. W. Associates, Appellant, v New York State Department of Transportation et al., Respondents.

— Appeal from that part of a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cobb, J.), entered October 11, 1984 in Albany County, which partially dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to, *inter alia,*annul a determination of respondent Department of Transportation denying petitioner’s ofF-premises sign permit application.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of Justice George L. Cobb at Special Term. Main, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7194

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO PIERRE SHUFFORD, a/k/a Bushwick,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:18-cr-00017-BR-1; 7:20-cv-00048-

BR)

Submitted: March 21, 2022 Decided: April 27, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Pierre Shufford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Pierre Shufford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shufford has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Shufford’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and to appoint counsel, and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Great Basin Rangelands Research: Reno, NV
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Newsletter
                        Volume 1
                                    Volume 2Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






ITheadline bar Information Technology


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### MURRAY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, ,< Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Edward Murray against the New York City Railway Company. B. H. Ames, for appellant. N. W. Kerngood, for respondent.

No opinion.' Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          1,776
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,868
<ALLOWANCES>                                      744
<INVENTORY>                                     8,395
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               17,378
<PP&E>                                         13,583
<DEPRECIATION>                                  6,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 36,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,243
<BONDS>                                         3,044
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          24,949
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           10
<OTHER-SE>                                      3,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   36,739
<SALES>                                        14,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,160
<CGS>                                           9,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24,819
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   30
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,826)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      108
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,934)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,934)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.99)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                                         
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: December 23, 2003 |  |  |  |                                         
|                        |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | /s/ David J. Wagner                     
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | Name:         David J. Wagner           
|                        |  |  |  | Title:           Chief Financial Officer
Case: 1:02-cv-00074 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/03/02 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-00074 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/03/02 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-00074 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/03/02 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-00074 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/03/02 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-00074 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/03/02 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-00074 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/03/02 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6
**Exhibit 32**

----

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ASREQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of TB Wood’s Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending January 2, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

|  1. | The Report fully complies with the    requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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. |

|                     |   |                                                      |   |                    |
|--------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| March 22, 2004 |   | /s/James R. SwensonJames R. Swenson   |   | Interim President       |
|                     |   |                                                      |   |                    |
| March 22, 2004 |   | /s/Joseph C. HorvathJoseph C. Horvath |   | Chief Financial Officer |

A signed original of this written    statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TB Wood’s Corporation and will be retained by TB Wood’s    Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

47

----
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1024 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1024

To make chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code permanent, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 16, 1997

Mr. Grassley (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Durbin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code permanent, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Family Farmer Protection Act of 
1997''.

 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION.

    Section 302 of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and 
Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (28 U.S.C. 581 note) is amended by 
striking subsection (f).

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHTS OF FAMILY FARMERS AFTER SUCCESSFUL 
              COMPLETION OF A PLAN.

    Section 2008h(b)(2), of title 7, United States Code is amended by 
adding ``or has successfully completed a reorganization plan under 
Chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code (the Bankruptcy Judges, 
United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986, 
Public Law No. 99-554, as amended)'' after ``title''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 8
 SUBSIDIARIES, EQUITY METHOD INVESTMENTS, AND OTHER INVESTMENTS
 
 I. Subsidiaries
GERMANY   2)   1)   3)  2)   1) 2)  1) 2)  2)   2) 3)       1)   2)  1)
 REST OF EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST, AFRICA     2)  2)    2)  2)           2)   2)




---



##### 



3)    2)     2) 3)  2) 3)  2)  3)  2) 3)   2)   2)  2) 3)  2) 3)  3)  2) 3)  2) 3)  2) 3)  2) 3)  2) 3)  3)  3)   2)  2) 3)  2) 3)    2)  2)  2)  2) 3)  2)  3)  3)  2) 3)
 AMERICAS   2)   2)




---



##### 



2)   2)   2)  2) 3)  2)  2)  2)  2)  2)  2) 3)  2)  2)  2)    2)
 ASIA PACIFIC JAPAN                 2)  2)   2)
 II. EQUITY METHOD INVESTMENTS  2)  2)  2)
 III. OTHER INVESTMENTS (ownership 5 or more percent)




---



#####
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6222

JAMES ROBERT RICE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAN L. DOVE, Warden of FCI, Edgefield; UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-01-507-9-23)

Submitted: July 9, 2002 Decided: July 18, 2002

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melisa W. Gay, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.

Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Barbara M. Bowens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Robert Rice appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Rice v. Dove, No. CA-01-507-9-23 (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2002);

see also San-Miguel v. Dove, 291 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2002). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2020204EN.01000801.xml

| 18.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9838 – Altor Fund Manager/Eleda/JVAB)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 204/02)

On 11 June 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9838. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9838. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The
Board of Directors
Caremark Rx, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements listed below of Caremark Rx, Inc. of our reports dated February 7, 2003, except as to the second paragraph of
Note 14, which is as of March 19, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Caremark Rx, Inc as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders' equity (deficit) and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the year then ended, and all related financial statement schedules, which reports appear in the
December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Caremark Rx, Inc.:



/s/
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
Birmingham, Alabama
March 28, 2003

---

QuickLinks
Case: 1:01-cv-07716 Document #: 19 Filed: 03/07/03 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:81
Case: 1:01-cv-07716 Document #: 19 Filed: 03/07/03 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:82
Case: 1:01-cv-07716 Document #: 19 Filed: 03/07/03 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:83
Case: 1:01-cv-07716 Document #: 19 Filed: 03/07/03 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:84
Case: 1:01-cv-07716 Document #: 19 Filed: 03/07/03 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:85
Case: 1:01-cr-00733 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/01 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cr-00733 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/01 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:2
Case: 1:01-cr-00733 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/01 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:3
Case: 1:01-cr-00733 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/01 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          19,335
<SECURITIES>                                    15,684
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (751)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,286
<PP&E>                                           4,452
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,122)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,171
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,966
<CGS>                                           18,908
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,611
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,356
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,730
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,626
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,626
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
        

</TABLE>
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 97-40286

Summary Calendar

_______________________

MELANIE MARTINEZ-JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

J C PENNEY COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(2:96-CV-65)

_________________________________________________________________

January 6, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having reviewed the briefs and pertinent portions of the

record, we agree for essentially the reasons stated by the district

that summary judgment was properly granted to appellee. There is

no genuine material issue of fact as to appellant’s claims,

including whether her asthma substantially limited any major life

activity or prevented her from working in any building other than
the Legacy Complex. See Heilwell v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 32 F.3d

718, 722-24 (2d Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.