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

No. DA 24-0184

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

WINSTON ALEXANDER RITTER,

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 July 1, 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 23 2024

05/23/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0184
Simon CRUZ-PENA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6389.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Rosales-Mireles v. United States,* 585 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1897, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018).
Samuel Allen TAYLOR, petitioner, v. NORTH CAROLINA.

No. 17-5574.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina denied.
Dan HAENDEL, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA; and Dan Haendel, petitioner, v. B.B. Cully, et al.

No. 17-30.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Release: #4242-99 (CFTC Docket No.99-8)

For Release: March 5, 1999

CFTC FILES ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST SELWYN "SY" GAIBER OF
    INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA, CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT
    AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

WASHINGTON – The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed
    a two-count administrative complaint charging Selwyn "Sy" Gaiber of
    Indian Wells, California, with violating section 4m(1) of the Commodity
    Exchange Act (CEA) by failing to register as a commodity trading advisor
    (CTA), as well as certain CFTC regulations.

According to the complaint, filed on March 4, 1999, Gaiber co-founded
    and operated a private investment club called the Bulls and Bears
    Club. The complaint alleges that between January 1997 and December
    1997, Gaiber acted as an unregistered CTA by giving commodity trading
    advice to members of the Bulls & Bears Club. The complaint further
    alleges that Gaiber provided that advice for compensation in weekly
    investment seminars by recommending trades to club members, either
    individually or in small groups, and pursuant to discretionary trading
    authority over seven of the members' commodity trading accounts, and
    by acting as the commodity trading advisor for the account of a commodity
    pool formed by some of the members.

In addition, the complaint charges that Gaiber violated CFTC regulations
    4.31, 4.34 and 4.35 by entering into agreements with prospective clients to
    direct such clients' commodity interest accounts, without delivering
    to them any documents disclosing the risks associated with managed
    commodity accounts or the record of his performance in directing the
    trading of commodity accounts.

A public hearing has been ordered to determine if the charges in the
    complaint are true, and, if so, what sanctions, if any, are appropriate and
    in the public interest. Possible sanctions include an order directing
    Gaiber to cease and desist from violating the CEA and CFTC regulations,
    prohibiting Gaiber from trading on or subject to the rules of any contract
    market and prohibiting all contract markets from granting Gaiber trading
    privileges thereon, ordering Gaiber to make restitution of damages caused
    by violations of the CEA, and imposing civil monetary penalties of not more
    than the higher of $110,000 or triple the monetary gain for each
    violation.

# # #
TEXAS, plaintiff, v. NEW MEXICO and Colorado.

No. 141, Original.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Motion of New Mexico to dismiss Texas's complaint is denied. Motion of Elephant Butte Irrigation District for leave to intervene denied. Motion of El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 for leave to intervene denied. Motion of New Mexico State University for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Motion of New Mexico Pecan Growers for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. The exception of the United States and the first exception of Colorado to the First Interim Report of the Special *350Master (Feb. 13, 2017) are set for oral argument in due course.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-091-CV

F & R AUTO, INC. APPELLANT

V.

ARLINGTON INDEPENDENT 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY OF 

ARLINGTON, TARRANT COUNTY, 

TARRANT COUNTY COLLEGE 

DISTRICT, AND TARRANT 

COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 236TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant F & R Auto, Inc. attempts to appeal from the trial court’s final

judgment in favor of Appellees Arlington Independent School District, City of

Arlington, Tarrant County, Tarrant County College District, and Tarrant County
2... The letter also indicated that the notice of appeal was defective for

failing to contain a certificate of service, and it asked F & R Auto to include an

amended notice of appeal with the response. The response did not include an

amended notice of appeal.

2

Hospital District. The trial court’s judgment was signed on December 18,

2008. F & R Auto did not file a motion for new trial. The notice of appeal was

therefore due on January 19, 2009, but it was not filed until March 16, 2009.

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.

On March 24, 2009, we notified F & R Auto of our concern that this

court may not have jurisdiction over the appeal and informed it that unless it or

any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court a response

showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal, this

appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.2 See Tex. R. App. P.

26.3(b), 42.3(a). F & R Auto filed a response, but it does not state grounds for

exercising jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DELIVERED: April 23, 2009
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Randolph A. SCOTT.

No. D-2999.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Randolph A. Scott, of Warrington, Pennsylvania, is suspended from the practice of *310law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2301

RONNIE L. WHITLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BLACK & DECKER (U.S.) INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-95-23-5-BO(2))

Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: April 12, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, WILKINS, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER,

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie L. Whitley, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Broughton Russell,

POYNER & SPRUILL, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

this employment discrimination action for insufficiency of process,

insufficiency of service of process, and lack of jurisdiction. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. See Despain v. Salt

Lake Area Metro Gang Unit, 13 F.3d 1436, 1439 (10th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, although we decline to address whether the complaint

was filed within the limitations period, we affirm the dismissal of

this action for failure to effect service upon the Defendant. 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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7828

BRIAN K. BOULB , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. ACTING WARDEN VAREEN, FCI Edgefield , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 0:19

- cv
- 02177

- RMG )

Submitted : April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020

Before WILKINSON , QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Brian K. Boulb , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brian K. Boulb, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order ac cepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and d ismissing without prejudice Boulb’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition , in which Boulb sought to challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention

. [Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental defect.
United States v. Wheeler , 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Boulb v. Acting Warden Vareen , No. 0:19

- cv
02177

- RMG (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 2019). 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.
AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc., a
Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Alexis Korybut, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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/ Alexis
Korybut


Alexis
Korybut


Chief
Executive Officer





April 15,
2010
Kenyock WRIGHT, petitioner, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 17-239.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

*361Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Henry E. GOSSAGE, petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD.

No. 17M28.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran granted.
# L_2007266EN.01000601.xml

| 11.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 266/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 266/6

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 48/2007

of 8 June 2007

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 16/2007 of 27 April 2007 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 16/2007 of 27 April 2007 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1849/2006 of 14 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 concerning the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1849/2006 of 14 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 concerning the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 12s (Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32006 R 1849: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1849/2006 of 14 December 2006 (OJ L 355, 15.12.2006, p. 63).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32006 R 1849: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1849/2006 of 14 December 2006 (OJ L 355, 15.12.2006, p. 63).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 1849/2006 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 9 June 2007, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 June 2007.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Alan SEATTER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 209, 9.8.2007, p. 28.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 355, 15.12.2006, p. 63.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
# C_2012049EN.01002202.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/22

---

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2011 — European Commission v Austrian Republic

(Case C-582/10) (1)

1

2012/C 49/39

Language of the case: German

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1

---
Clifton Deron CAMPBELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-8855.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Francis W. SUGHRUE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA, et al.

No. 17-8572.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
William K. McNEW, petitioner, v. WISCONSIN.

No. 17-5982.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III denied.
---

Exhibit 99.11

CONSENT OF CLANCY WENDT P. GEO

I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents, which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statement on Form 40-F of Gammon Gold Inc. (the
Company) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission:

| | 1. | The technical report dated November 25, 2002 entitled
"Guadalupe y Calvo Gold-Silver Project, Chihuahua, Mexico," (The "Guadalupe
Report"); and                                                            
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | 2. | The Annual Information Form of the Company dated March 30, 2010, which includes reference to my name in connection with information relating to the
Guadalupe Report, and the properties described therein.

Date: March 30, 2010

| | By: | /s/ Clarence J. Wendt                                            
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Clarence J. Wendt
      (former employee of Pincock Allen & Holt)



---
Kenneth Phillip JACKSON, petitioner, v. Melissa HAINSWORTH, Acting Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Somerset, et al.

No. 17-8099.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2
IEA Income Fund X, L.P.
RULE 13a-14 CERTIFICATION
     I, John Kallas, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income FundX, L.P. (the “Registrant”);
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), theGeneral Partner of the Registrant, and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have:
          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared; and
          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, based on ourevaluation; and
          (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of Registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004
/s/ JOHN KALLAS
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.3

                           DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF
                      MARATHON POWER TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned directors and officers of TransDigm Holding Company hereby
constitute and appoint Peter B. Radekevich with full power of substitution and
resubstitution as attorney-in-fact for each of the undersigned, and in the
name, place and stead of each of the undersigned, to execute on behalf of each
of the undersigned an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 1999 pursuant to Section 13 of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and to execute any and all amendments to such report and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto and other documents required to be filed in connection
therewith, granting to such attorney full power to act with or without the
others, and to have full power and authority to do and perform, in the name and
on behalf of each of the undersigned, every act whatsoever necessary, advisable
or appropriate to be done in the premises, hereby ratifying and approving the
act of said attorney and any such substitute.

This Power of Attorney may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original with respect to the person executing it.

                      EXECUTED as of December 23, 1999.

/s/ Douglas W. Peacock
--------------------------------
Douglas W. Peacock
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)




/s/ Albert J. Rodriguez
---------------------------------
Albert J. Rodriguez
President
(Principal Operating Officer)




/s/ W. Nicholas Howley
-----------------------------------
W. Nicholas Howley, Director


                                      xxx
Joseph A. PARKER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8829.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
James DAWSON, et ux., petitioners, v. Dale W. STEAGER, West Virginia State Tax Commissioner.

No. 17-419.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted limited to the question presented by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States as *amicus curiae* .
Eileen M. HYLIND, petitioner, v. XEROX CORPORATION.

No. 15-1430.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 24
 LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
  th
 /s/ Bahram AkradiBahram Akradi




---



##### 



LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
  th
 /s/ Joseph S. VassalluzzoJoseph S. Vassalluzzo




---



##### 



LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
  th
 /s/ Martha A. MorfittMartha (Marti) A. Morfitt




---



##### 



LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
  th
 /s/ Guy C. JacksonGuy C. Jackson




---



##### 



LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
  th
 /s/ Giles H. BatemanGiles H. Bateman




---



##### 



LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
  th
 /s/ John B. RichardsJohn B. Richards




---



##### 



LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
  th
 /s/ Jack W. EugsterJack W. Eugster




---



##### 



LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
  th
 /s/ John K. LloydJohn K. Lloyd