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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0091

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MARY DARLEAN WRIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, 

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

and including May 18, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 13 2021

04/13/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0091
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50524-50525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19404]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-133-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone 49--Newark, New Jersey; Application for 
Subzone; Getinge Group Logistics Americas LLC; Dayton, New Jersey

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) 
Board by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 
49, requesting subzone status for the facility of Getinge Group 
Logistics Americas LLC (GGLA), located in Dayton, New Jersey. The 
application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-
Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of 
the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on September 
2, 2021.
    The proposed subzone (3.55 acres) is located at 2349 Route 130, 
Suite A,

[[Page 50525]]

Dayton, New Jersey. No authorization for production activity has been 
requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the 
existing activation limit of FTZ 49.
    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of 
the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#533527291327213237367d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f3958789b38781929796dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>. The closing period for their receipt is October 19, 
2021. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to November 3, 2021.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Online FTZ Information Section'' section of the FTZ Board's 
website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d3e150f140e09120d15180f533618100d3d090f1c1918531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8fbd0cad1cbccd7c8d0ddca96f3ddd5c8f8cccad9dcdd96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 2, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19404 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19428]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Structural Safety of Department of Veterans 
Affairs Facilities, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2., that the Advisory 
Committee on Structural Safety of Department of Veterans Affairs 
Facilities will conduct a virtual meeting on September 28, 2021 from 
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The meeting is open to 
the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs on matters of structural safety in the construction and 
remodeling of VA facilities and to recommend standards for use by VA in 
the construction and alteration of its facilities.
    On September 28, the Committee will receive appropriate briefings 
and presentations on current seismic, natural hazards, and fire safety 
issues that are particularly relevant to facilities owned and leased by 
the Department. The Committee will also discuss appropriate structural 
and fire safety recommendations for inclusion in VA's construction 
standards.
    No time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the 
public. However, the Committee will accept written comments. Comments 
should be emailed to Donald Myers, Director, Facilities Standards 
Service, Office of Construction & Facilities Management (003C2B), 
Department of Veterans Affairs, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f5b70717e737b3152667a6d6c5f697e31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94d0fbfaf5f8f0bad9edf1e6e7d4e2f5baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>. In the 
communication, writers must identify themselves and state the 
organization, association, or person(s) they represent. For any members 
of the public that wish to attend virtually, they may use the Microsoft 
Teams link or call in with the phone number and Phone Conference ID 
below:
    https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_MzFiNWQ4YTUtNTZmMS00NjQ3LWFjY2UtNzJlNjQ1MWY5ZWVl%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22e95f1b23-abaf-45ee-821d-b7ab251ab3bf%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22d2eb6490-e84d-4737-b9ce-b5664e018fd6%22%7d, or to join by phone (audio only): +1 872-701-0185, 
Phone Conference ID: 927 435 816#.
    Those seeking additional information or wishing to attend should 
contact Mr. Myers at the email address noted above or by phone at 202-
632-5388.

    Dated: September 3, 2021.
Jelessa M. Burney,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-19428 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-7570 HENRY CLIFFORD BYRD, SR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CR-83-52, CA-97-1047-1) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 24, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from an order of the magistrate judge dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We remand for further pro ceedings. Absent consent of the parties to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction to enter final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994), this court has no jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge's order. See Silberstein v. Silberstein , 859 F.2d 40, 41-42 (7th Cir. 1988); Parks ex rel. Parks v. Collins , 761 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1982). The recordbefore the court does not reflect consent of the parties to the magistrate judge's exercise of jurisdiction or referral of the action to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). We accordingly grant a certificate of appealability and remand the case for determination by the district court. We dispense with oralargument because the fact and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. REMANDED 2
DANIELS CREEK AT CHARLESTON, UTAHLatitude: 40.461Longitude: -111.472Elevation: 5428

DANIELS CREEK AT CHARLESTON, UTAH

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hobble Creek Site Page...



Hobble Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Daniels-Strawberry Site Page...



Daniels-Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Strawberry Divide Site Page...



Strawberry Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Timpanogos Divide Site Page...



Timpanogos Divide
GCD AMP Science Planning Gr

Evaluation of Effectiven

and Recommendation

By the Science Planning Gro

L.D. Garrett

SA Executive Secreta

To

Technical Work Group Me

April 2-3, 2007

Phoenix, Arizona
SPG Members and Partic

Mathew Anderson-GCMRCMary Barger-WAPAJill Baron-Science AdvisorDavid Begay-Navajo TribeMike Berry-BORGary Burton-WAPALew Coggins-GCMRCKerry Christensen-Hualupai TribeVirginia Dale-Science AdvisorKurt Dongoskie-TWG ChairHelen Fairley-GCMRCDave Garrett-Executive Secretary SALloyd Greiner-UAMPSLance Gunderson-Science AdvisorJohn Hamill-GCMRC ChiefNorm Henderson-NPSAlan Howard-Science AdvisorLoretta Jackson-Hualupai TribeRick Johnson-Grand Canyon TrustTed Kennedy-GCMRCChris Kincaid-NPS

Jim Kitchell-Science Josh Korman-ESRIDennis Kubly-BORLisa Leap-NPSMike Liszewski-GCMMark McKinstry-BORKen McMullen-NPSTed Melis-GCMRCJohn O’Brien-Grand CClayton Palmer-WAPBill Persons-AZG&FAndre Potochnik-GraBarbara Ralston-GCMDale Robertson-ScieDavid Seibert-Piaute Mark Steffens-FlyfishLarry Stevens-WildlaBill Vernieu-GCMRCMike Yeatts-Hopi Trib
Goals and Procedure

• Develop and follow approved progr

prospectus

• Produce 3 science plans and exper

options in 12 months

• Leadership by GCMRC, TWG and • Utilize open process of participating 

in multiple workshops

• Build plans from outline to final doc

review

• Recommend to TWG and AMWG in 
SPG Effectiveness

• Collaboration of scientists and 

in developing plans

• Operation and functions of SPG 

was acceptable; participant atteaveraged 14-20 persons per m

• Accomplished goals on time,• Outputs are acceptable in the c

AMP process
Recommendations on Fu

Subgroups of the TWG

• Develop action plan or work pla• Small working group of TWG a

representatives

• Agreement upon criteria, memb

procedures, time dependent ou

• Develop programs from bottom 

concepts to plans

• Specify realistic budget and en

accomplishments
SPG Recommended Issues 

Resolve: 2007- 2011

1. Develop improved methods and/o

for managers to establish and artpriorities for specific 3-5 year time 

2. Develop improved methods for m

scientists that permit more effectivassessments.

3. Develop more effective scientist/m

collaborative working procedures

4. Implement methods to monitor an

the adaptive management proces
Continued: Recommended Issue

Resolve: 2007-2011

5. Defining manager’s desired future 

conditions (dcfs) for CRE.

6. Resolve a process to defining cor

projects and appropriate monitoriresearch balance in the AMP scie

7. Implement explicit interdisciplinar

attributes in science programs.

8. Develop effective funding process 

accommodate increasing science management program needs.
Continued: Recommended Issue

Resolve: 2007- 2011

9. Develop science and managemen

approaches to understand and mexternal impactors to CRE resour

10. Define criteria and processes to d

transition from science efforts to mactions of the GCD AMP.
#### JENKINS’S CASE. William J. Jenkins Executor, *v.*The United States.

*On the Proofs.*

*fíotíonis captured near Beaufort, S. C.,*in 1861. *It is shipped to New Yorlc, received and sold by the collector of that port. The proceeds are paid into the Treasury during the years*1861 and 1863.

A suit may loe maintained for the proceeds in the Treasury of property captured in 1861, although the proceeds reached the Treasury before the passage of the *Abandoned or captured properly Act.*

*Mr. Thomas Wilson*for the claimant.

*Mr. Alexander Johnston*for the defendants.

Milligan J,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claim made in this case is for sixty bales of sea-island cotton captured on theisland of Saint Helena, Beaufort District, S. C. The cotton claimed was raised on the testator’s planta*465tion on Saint Helena Island, known as “Indian Hill,” in the year 1861.

At the time the island was occupied by the United States troops there were 75,000 pounds of the crop of 1861 in the seed gathered and stored in the cotton-house, and about 2,500 pounds in the house which had not been weighed. In this situation of the cotton, it was seized under the orders of Col. W. H. Noble, then acting as an agent of the Treasury of the United States.

All the cotton on the Indian Hill plantation, as well that which was weighed as that not weighed, was taken down to the village of Saint Helena and put on board the Mayflower, and shipped to Hilton Head, thence forwarded to New York.

While the Treasury return does not show the proceeds of this specific lot of cotton in the Treasury, it does show that during the years 1861 and 1862, Hiram Barney, the cotton-agent at New York, received from Hilton Head and Beaufort large quantities of cotton, which, after paying expenses, produced $480,310.85, which was paid into the Treasury.

It further shows that the price of sea-island cotton derived from these places was $161.25 per bale.

In addition to the foregoing facts, it appears in this record by one witness that 1,250 pounds of seed-cotton make a bale of sea-island cotton, and by another that it takes 1,400 pounds of seed-cotton.

The average of these amounts is 1,325. The amount of cotton seized, 77,500 pounds, gives 58 J bales, which, at $161.25, amounts to $9,432.12-];, for which judgment will be entered.
733 A.2d 1267

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Robert BOYDEN, Sr., Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted April 27, 1999.

Decided Aug. 5, 1999.

Robert F. Pappano, Asst. Pub. Defender, Office of the Public Defender, for Robert Boyden.

Patrick L. Meehan, Dist. Atty., Michelle P. Hutton, Asst. Dist. Atty., A. Sheldon Kovach, Deputy Dist. Atty., Office of the District Attorney, for Commonwealth.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5 th day of August, 1999, we dismiss this case as having been improvidently granted.

Justice NIGRO dissents.
#### Jody El Idrissi *v.*Rachid El Idrissi

*Edward D. Cosden, Jr.,*in support of the motion.

*Michael A. Meyers,*in opposition.

Submitted May 30

decided June 18, 1975

The defendant’s motion for a review of the trial referee’s orders dated February 18, and April 4, 1975, in the appeal from the Superior Court for the judicial district of Waterbury is granted and the relief requested therein is denied.
#### MacFarlane, Respondent, *v.*Walter, Appellant.

*(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.*

May 24, 1890.)

Appeal from order directing judgment for plaintiff on demurrer as frivolous.

Argued before Sedgwick, C. J., and Freedman, J.

*W. T, Birdsall,*for appellant. *F. E. Anderson,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Power Sports Factory, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shawn Landgraf, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Shawn LandgrafShawn Landgraf Chief Executive
Officer


August 18, 2008
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                            STATEMENT UNDER OATH FOR
                           PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, Davinder Sethi, certify that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2002
of Entrada Networks, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained
in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2002 of
Entrada Networks, Inc fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Entrada Networks, Inc.


                                             Subscribed and sworn to
                                             before me this 21 day of August


 /s/ Davinder Sethi                            /s/ Matthew Schorr
-------------------------                    --------------------
Name: Davinder Sethi                         Notary Public of New Jersey
Principal Financial Officer                  Commission expires November 7, 2006
Date: August 21, 2002                        Seal
#### Gloucester Iron-Works *v.*Board of Water Com’rs.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

May 12, 1890.)

Actions—Consolidation.

Plaintiffs sued-for the contract price of goods delivered to defendant. The answer averred a failure by plaintiffs to perform their part of the contract, whereby defendant was sued by other parties, and notice was given to plaintiff to assume the defense of such action, which had been referred. *Held,*that a motion by plaintiffs to have the two actions consolidated so that the rights of the respective parties might be adjusted so as to conform to the facts alleged in the moving affidavits, which facts were disputed, was properly denied.

Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Action by the Gloucester Iron-Works against the board of water commissioners of the village of Sing Sing. Plaintiff appeals from an order denying a motion for consolidation of actions, and for further relief.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Moses B, Crow,*for appellant. *Samuel Watson*and *Smith Lent,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

There is no basis for this motion. The plaintiff made a contract with the defendant to deliver iron castings at a certain price agreed upon. Upon a failure to pay the price for the property after its delivery, the plaintiff has brought an action. The answer avers that by the terms of the contract the plaintiff agreed to indemnify and save harmless the defendant for a failure to perform the contract, and avers a failure, whereby the defendant was sued by other parties, which suit is still pending. The pleadings in this action are set forth in the papers. The defendant gave notice to the plaintiff to assume the defense of the action, which is referred to a referee by agreement of the parties to that action. At this state of the two controversies this motion is made, with a design to have the two controversies adjusted so that “the position and standing of the respective parties under the facts as set forth in this [the plaintiff’s] affidavit” may conform thereto. The facts are disputed, and the two actions must be based upon the real facts as found upon the trial. The motion papers assert that the two actions cannot *169be properly joined m one action upon the facts. The motion was properly denied. The ordinary method of trial would be replaced by a trial upon affidavits *ex parte.*Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program Budget Priorities 

TWG meeting November 7, 2023 

1 
2 
Budget and Workplan Background 

3 
 

 

Program Funding 

o Pre-2018: Power Revenue 

o 2019: Appropriations 

o 2020-2021: Power Revenue 

o 2022+: Appropriations 

“Due to uncertainties in future funding levels, prioritization of projects 

outlined in the FY2021-2023 TWP is necessary and will be undertaken by the 

GCDAMP during FY2021. Project priorities may change over time based on 

hydrology, resource conditions, evolving scientific understanding and 

uncertainties, administration objectives and other factors.” 

4 
o Grand Canyon Protection Act 

o NEPA 

o LTEMP ROD 

o ESA 

o 2007 BO for Interim Guidelines 

o 2016 BO for LTEMP 

o NHPA 

o Administrative 

5 
LTEMP NEPA 

• 6.1 Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive

Management Program 

• 6.2 Protection, Mitigation, and 

Monitoring of Cultural 

Resources 

• 6.3 Endangered Species Act

Compliance 

• 6.4 Experimental Vegetation

Treatment and Mitigation 

• 6.5 Commitment to Tribes 

6 
LTEMP Biological Opinion 

7 
LTEMP Biological Opinion 

8 
 

 

NHPA (Programmatic Agreement) 

• 19 Stipulations in the programmatic agreement 

• Examples 

• III. Permits and Additional Compliance (Ex. D.12) 

• VI. Archeological and Tribal Monitoring (Ex. D.3, D.4, D.14) 

9 
Risk Assessment 

Score Impact Likelihood

5 Jeopardy determination, 80-100% chance of impact 

reconsultation, or legal claim occurring within 1 to 3-year 

against the Department could time frame. 

potentially result. 

4 60-80% chance of impact 

occurring within 1 to 3-year 

time frame. 

3 May result in a formal 40-60% chance of impact 

complaint, letter of occurring within 1 to 3-year 

reprimand by regulatory time frame. 

agency, or public criticism. 

2 20-40% chance of impact 

occurring within 1 to 3-year 

time frame. 

1 No impact to compliance 0-20% chance of impact 

anticipated. occurring within 1 to 3-year 

time frame. 

10 
Questions?
## NUMBER 13

- 21

- 00 207

- C R

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

JOSE HOMERO CEPEDA

, Appellant

,

v

.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 445 th District Court

of Cameron C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

On July 1, 2021, a ppellant Jose Homero Cepeda filed a notice of appeal from his

conviction for theft of property valued at $2,500 or more but less than $30,000, a state jail

felony

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 31.03(e)(4) (A)

. On June 8, 2022, we abated the

appeal and remanded the case to the trial court to resolve a conflict between the record

and the trial court’s certification of Cepeda’s right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.2

25.2(a)(2).

Cep eda has since filed a motion to dismiss the appeal , signed by Cepeda and his

attorney

. See id. R. 42

. 2 (a) (providing that

, in a criminal case

, the appellant has the right

to voluntarily and unilaterally dismiss the appeal “[a]t any time before the appellate court’s

decision”)

. Accordingly, we re instate the appeal, grant Cepeda’s motion, and dismiss the

appeal. See id. Having dismissed the appeal at Cepeda’s request, no motion for rehearing

will be entertained.

GINA M. BEN AVIDES

Justice

Do not publish.

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

7th day of Ju ly , 202 2

.