alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0653 IN THE MATTER OF: H.M., A Youth. **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 March 15 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

February 3 2023

02/03/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0653
<PAGE>

As filed with Delaware Secretary on 6/19/96


                  CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO
                       AMENDED AND RESTATED
       CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF DMI FURNITURE, INC.


     DMI Furniture, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware ("DGCL"), does hereby certify:

     1. The name of the corporation is DMI Furniture, Inc (the "Corporation").

     2. An Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the "Certificate")
was filed by the Secretary of State of Delaware on March 23, 1995 and requires
correction as permitted by Section 103 of the DGCL.

     3. The Certificate erroneously includes language in Article FOURTH, Part I,
Section 3C that was not adopted by the Corporation.

     4. The Certificate is corrected so that Article FOURTH, Part I, Section 3C
of the Certificate, as corrected, reads as follows:

          3C. REDEMPTION AT THE CORPORATION'S OPTION. The Corporation may from
          time to time redeem all or any portion of the Shares then outstanding
          at an amount for each Share to be redeemed. If the Corporation redeems
          fewer than all of the Shares then outstanding pursuant of this
          paragraph 3C, the Corporation shall effect such redemption pro rata
          among all holders of Shares. The number of Shares to be redeemed from
          each holder thereof in any redemption pursuant to this paragraph 3C
          shall be determined by multiplying the total number of Shares to be
          redeemed times a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the total
          number of shares then held by such holder and the denominator of which
          shall be the total number of Shares then outstanding, provided that
          the Corporation shall not be required to redeem any fractional shares
          and redeem from such holders only the whole number of shares resulting
          from such calculation.


                                       E-1                               Page 42
<PAGE>

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DMI Furniture, Inc. has caused its Chairman and Secretary
to sign and attest this Certificate this 13th day of June, 1996.


                                   DMI FURNITURE, INC.
                                   By: /s/ Donald D. Dreher
                                        Donald D. Dreher
                                        Chairman of the Board,
                                          President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer


ATTEST:


/s/ Joseph G. Hill
Joseph G. Hill, Secretary


                                       E-2                               Page 43
Clear All

        28 October 2022    

                    USS Gerald R. Ford arrives in Halifax for First International Port Visit                 
                HALIFAX, Nova Scotia - The first-in-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) and embarked crew arrived in Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the ship’s first international port visit, Oct. 28, 2022.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 23 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 23 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 23 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 23 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 23 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 23 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 23 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
#### Pearsal Properties Corp., Appellant, v Arzina Realty Corp. et al., Defendants, and Al Porat et al., Respondents.

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered September 29, 1988.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Ruskin at the Supreme Court. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Voyager Learning Company

We consent to incorporation by
reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-99982, 333-48425, and 333-93099) on Form S-8 of Voyager Learning Company (formerly known as ProQuest Company) and in the registration statement (No. 333-59450) on Form S-3 of Voyager Learning Company
of our reports dated August 31, 2007 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Voyager Learning Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and January 1, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders equity (deficit) and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005 and managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the fiscal 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Voyager Learning Company.

Our report dated August 31, 2007 included an emphasis paragraph which indicated that Voyager Learning Company has restated previously
issued financial statements as of January 1, 2005 and for each of the years in the two-year period ended January 1, 2005.

Our
report dated August 31, 2007 on managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 expresses our opinion that managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting is fairly stated and Voyager Learning Company did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 because of the effect of material weaknesses on the achievement of the
objectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the existence of a number of material weaknesses resulted in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of Voyager Learning Companys
annual or interim financial statements would not be prevented or detected in various account balances.

Our report dated August 31, 2007 on
managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that
Voyager Learning Company excluded recently acquired entities, Voyager Expanded Learning, Inc. and Syncata Corporation, from its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our audit of internal control over
financial reporting also excluded an evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting of Voyager Expanded Learning, Inc. and Syncata Corporation.



|                 
|-----------------
|                 
|/s/ KPMG LLP     
|Detroit, Michigan
|                 
|August 31, 2007
# CE2010184EN.01018501.xml

| 8.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 184/185 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 184/185

---

Wednesday 22 April 2009Draft amending budget No 3/2009

P6_TA(2009)0232

European Parliament resolution of 22 April 2009 on Draft amending budget No 3/2009 of the European Union for the financial year 2009, Section III - Commission (8153/2009 – C6-0118/2009 – 2009/2017(BUD))

2010/C 184 E/46

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to Article 272 of the EC Treaty and Article 177 of the Euratom Treaty,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), and particularly Articles 37 and 38,

1

having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2009, as finally adopted on 18 December 2008 (2),

2

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (3),

3

having regard to Preliminary draft amending budget No 3/2009 of the European Union for the financial year 2009, which the Commission presented on 6 March 2009 (COM (2009)0110),

having regard to Draft amending budget No 3/2009, which the Council established on 30 March 2009 (8153/2009 – C6-0118/2009),

having regard to Rule 69 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0194/2009),

| A. | whereas Draft amending budget No 3 to the general budget 2009 covers the readjustment, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2007, of the own resources system according to Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Draft amending budget No 3 to the general budget 2009 covers the readjustment, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2007, of the own resources system according to Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007,

| B. | whereas the purpose of Draft amending budget No 3/2009 is to formally enter these budgetary adjustments into the 2009 budget, |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas the purpose of Draft amending budget No 3/2009 is to formally enter these budgetary adjustments into the 2009 budget,

| 1. | Takes note of the Preliminary draft amending budget No 3/2009; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Takes note of the Preliminary draft amending budget No 3/2009;

| 2. | Approves Draft amending budget No 3/2009 unamended; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Approves Draft amending budget No 3/2009 unamended;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.

---

(1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 69, 13.3.2009.

2

(3)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

3

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Vasquez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered on June 4, 1985, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. SCUDI, Appellant, v. DALTON et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

April 13, 1894.)

R. L. Turk, for appellant. Edward Browne, for respondents.

No opinion. Writ dismissed, with costs.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 668 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide flexibility in 

the manner in which beds are counted for purposes of determining 

whether a hospital may be designated as a critical access hospital under 

the Medicare Program and to exempt from the critical access hospital 

inpatient bed limitation the number of beds provided for certain veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2009 

Mr. WALDEN (for himself and Mr. KIND) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

flexibility in the manner in which beds are counted for 

purposes of determining whether a hospital may be designated as a critical access hospital under the Medicare 

Program and to exempt from the critical access hospital 

inpatient bed limitation the number of beds provided 

for certain veterans. 

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 ‘‘Critical Access Hos5 pital Flexibility Act of 2009’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 668 IH

1 SEC. 2. FLEXIBILITY IN THE MANNER IN WHICH BEDS ARE 

2 COUNTED FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING 

3 WHETHER A HOSPITAL MAY BE DESIGNATED 

4 AS A CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL UNDER 

5 THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1820(c)(2)(B) of the So7 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i–4(c)(2)(B)) is amend8 ed— 

9 (1) in clause (iii), by inserting ‘‘(or 20, as de10 termined on an annual, average basis)’’ after ‘‘25’’; 

11 and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following flush 

13 sentence: 

14 ‘‘In determining the number of beds for purposes of 

15 clause (iii), only beds that are occupied shall be 

16 counted.’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section take effect on January 1, 2010. 

19 SEC. 3. CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL INPATIENT BED LIMI20 TATION EXEMPTION FOR BEDS PROVIDED TO 

21 CERTAIN VETERANS. 

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1820(c) of the Social Se23 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i–4(c)) is amended by adding 

24 at the end the following new paragraph: 

25 ‘‘(3) EXEMPTION FROM BED LIMITATION.—For 

26 purposes of this section, no acute care inpatient bed 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 668 IH

1 shall be counted against any numerical limitation 

2 specified under this section for such a bed (or for in3 patient bed days with respect to such a bed) if the 

4 bed is provided for an individual who is a veteran 

5 and the Department of Veterans Affairs referred the 

6 individual for care in the hospital or is coordinating 

7 such care with other care being provided by such 

8 Department.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) shall apply to cost reporting periods begin11 ning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
**Exhibit99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

I, Bernard Briskin, Chief Executive Officer of Arden Group, Inc., aDelaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 that to the best of my knowledge (1) the annual report on Form 10-K of theCompany for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2002, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|   |   | /s/ BERNARD BRISKIN     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Bernard Briskin         |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  | March 20, 2003          |

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required bythe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
EXHIBIT 99.1





                             AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY


                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Skiing Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 27, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
J. Fair, President and 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date:  June 11, 2003

                                           By:   /s/ William J. Fair
                                           --------------------------------
                                           William J. Fair
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Gilmore, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered March 29, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find, that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The prosecutor’s remark that "the [two] people who did not do the shooting testified and sat right in this witness stand and told you their version of the facts” did not constitute an improper comment on the defendant’s failure to testify. An adverse inference from the defendant’s failure to testify was not an inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the prosecutor’s statement *(see, People v Garcia,*51 AD2d 329, *affd*41 NY2d 861; *People v Brooks,*117 AD2d 972). Further, any adverse impression from the defendant’s failure to testify was created by the defense counsel’s opening statement in which he said that the defendant would take the stand and in which he set *744forth the substance of the defendant’s intended testimony *(see, United States v Robinson,*485 US 25, 99 L Ed 2d 23; *Lockett v Ohio,*438 US 586).

Additionally, it is evident that the defendant’s claim that the question of whether the witness George Murdock was an accomplice as a matter of fact should have been submitted to the jury has not been preserved for appellate review since the defense counsel never requested such an instruction or objected to its absence but, instead, requested an instruction that Murdock was an accomplice as a matter of law *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Calandro,*127 AD2d 675, 676; *cf., People v Tusa,*137 AD2d 151, 155-156). In any event, different inferences could not reasonably be drawn from the proof adduced at trial as to Murdock’s awareness of or complicity in the criminal enterprise *(see,*CPL 60.22 [2]; *People v Tucker,*72 NY2d 849). Moreover, "where a witness’s status as an 'accessory after the fact’ is in dispute, there is no need for a jury resolution of that question” *(People v Vataj,*121 AD2d 756, 758, *revd on other grounds*69 NY2d 985; *see, People v Tusa, supra,*at 157-158).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-01530-AKH Document 20 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01530-AKH Document 20 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01530-AKH Document 20 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2407

PERCY MOORE BELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY; CORPORATE SERVICES

MANAGEMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-768)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 12, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Percy Moore Bell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. 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. Bell

v. Coca-Cola Co., No. CA-96-768 (E.D. Va. Sept. 18, 1996). 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Andre, Also Known as Andre John, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered February 28, 1986, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred when it omitted the statutory definitions of "deprive” and "appropriate” (Penal Law § 155.00 [3], [4]) from its supplemental instructions to the jury on the grand larceny charges has not been preserved for appellate review in that no objection was made thereto, nor was a request for a more amplified instruction made *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Burnice,*112 AD2d 642; *People v Robinson,*103 AD2d 852). In any event, the court’s supplemental instruction was fully responsive to the jury’s inquiry, and as a whole was not prejudicial to the defendant *(see, People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126; *People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296; *People v Shakur,*144 AD2d 600). Finally, in con*590trast to those cases cited by the defendant, here the jury was provided with the appropriate definitions in the original charge and thus the concept of "permanency” as employed in the definitions of "deprive” and "appropriate” was already before it *(see, People v Ward,*120 AD2d 758; *People v Monahan,*103 AD2d 833). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#                                                                         Tactical Training Group Atlantic Hosts Warfare Commanders Conference to Build Teamwork, Boost Readiness                                                                    

##### by Carrier Strike Group 4 Public Affairs

20 January 2023

Tags:
**training**readiness**Tactical Training Group Atlantic**Carrier Strike Group 4**Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 2**CSG 4**CSG 2
<PAGE>

CONTACT:  Raymond B. Rogers                  (NYSE -- BMC)
          (612)  851-6030                    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

                      BMC ANNOUNCES QUARTERLY DIVIDEND

December 12, 1997 --  Minneapolis, Minnesota -- BMC Industries, Inc. today
announced that its Board of Directors has approved a continuation of its
quarterly cash dividend of $.015 per share.

Shareholders of record as of December 23, 1997 will receive a dividend of $.015
for each share owned on that date, to be paid on January 5, 1998.

BMC Industries, Inc. is one of the world's largest manufacturers of aperture
masks for color picture tubes used in televisions and computer monitors.  The
Company is also a leading producer of polycarbonate, glass and plastic eyewear
lenses.  BMC's Common Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol BMC.