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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 23-0437 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAEL C. MITCHELL, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

FILED 

FEB 2 0 2024 

Bowen 

Clerk Greenwood 

State 

of Supreme Court of Montana 

ORDER 

In a February 6, 2024 Order, this Court dismissed with prejudice this appeal of a 

criminal sentence, filed by self-represented Appellant Michael C. Mitchell. The dismissal 

was predicated upon Mitchell's failure to file a status report after this Court received the 

Jefferson County District Court record on September 8, 2023. This Court issued an Order 

requiring a status report on December 15, 2023, regarding the transcripts. On January 4, 

2024, the Clerk of the Supreme Court noted in this Court's filing database that Mitchell 

had sent a letter, requesting an extension of time and court-appointed counsel. This Court 

never saw the letter because it was not filed, being returned for lack of service to opposing 

counsel. Mitchell renewed his motion for appointment of counsel in a separate pleading, 

dated January 20, 2024. That pleading was filed on February 12, 2024. We observe that 

Mitchell is currently incarcerated in the Saguaro Correctional Center in Arizona. 

"For every wrong there is a remedy." Section 1-3-214, MCA. It appears he is 

entitled to counsel in this appeal. Sections 46-20-104, 46-8-103(1), MCA. Upon review, 

this Court enters the following Order. 

IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. the February 6, 2024 Order, dismissing this appeal with prejudice, is VACATED 

and this appeal is returned to the status as Pre-Briefing instead of Post-Decision; 

2. Mitchell's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is GRANTED; and 

02/20/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0437
3. the Appellate Defender Division shall have thirty days from the date of this 

Order within which to file either a Notice of Appearance or a Motion to Rescind 

this Order appointing counsel. The Appellate Defender Division shall order any 

necessary transcripts. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the Appellate Defender 

Division; to counsel of record, and to Michael C. Mitchell, Saguaro Correctional Center, 

1250 E. Arica Road, Eloy, AZ, 85131. 

DATED this e'l`"""diy of February, 2024. 

Chief Justice 

rc 

;;Lwis eig:,,,.... Cie 

/NW 

Justices 

2
Exhibit


Exhibit 10.3



December 16, 2015
Mr. Andrew Puhala
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
Era Group Inc. 
818 Town & Country Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77024


Dear Andy,


The purpose of this letter agreement (this “Letter Agreement”) is to document changes to your compensation effective January 1, 2016 (the “Effective Date”).  In response to your request for a temporary reduction of your base salary, the Compensation Committee has reviewed and approved the requested ten percent (10%) reduction in your base salary from $275,000 (the “Permanent Base Salary”) to $247,500 (the “Temporary Base Salary”) beginning on the Effective Date through December 31, 2016.  Effective as of January 1, 2017, the reduction in base salary described in this Letter shall end and the Permanent Base Salary shall once again be in effect.


Notwithstanding the reductions in your base salary described above, the Permanent Base Salary will be used for all other purposes, including to determine your eligibility for benefits such as your target annual bonus opportunity under the annual cash bonus plan, your annual restricted stock award, participation in the Era Group Inc. Executive Severance Plan and any other benefits.
 
Additionally, by signing this Letter, you agree that the changes described in this Letter constitute an amendment to the terms of your employment with Era Group Inc.


Andy, thank you for your display of leadership and recognition of the company’s situation in these challenging times. Please indicate your agreement to, and acknowledgment of, the changes described in this Letter by signing below. 


Sincerely,
	
		
	/s/ Blaine V. Fogg
	 

	 
	 

	Blaine V. Fogg
	 

	Chairman of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Era Group Inc.






Agreed to and accepted this 16th day of December, 2015.
	
			
	By:
	/s/ Andrew Puhala
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	Andrew Puhala
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**1350
      Certification of Chief Executive**














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 report of Med-Emerg International Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr. Ramesh
      Zacharias Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.





Dated:
      March 31, 2006









By:
                /s/Dr. Ramesh ZachariasName:
                Dr. Ramesh ZachariasTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer
----

| Principal Executive Officer | Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |                                                         |
|                        |                                                         |
| DAVIS SERIES, INC.          | DAVIS SERIES, INC.                                           |
|                        |                                                         |
| /s/ Kenneth C. Eich         | /s/ Douglas A. Haines                                        |
|                        |                                                         |
| Kenneth C. Eich             | Douglas A. Haines                                            |
| Principal Executive Officer | Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |
| Date: August 25, 2023       | Date: August 25, 2023                                        |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 179 DB 2023 (7 RST 2024)

:

EMILY HELEN LUCKING : Attorney Registration No. 313818

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

 FROM INACTIVE STATUS : (Montgomery County)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of February, 2024, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated February 22, 2024, is approved and it is ORDERED 

that EMILY HELEN LUCKING, who has been on Inactive Status, has demonstrated that 

she has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for admission 

to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a 

member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the 

investigation and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1218

MARIANO H. OSPINA,

Debtor - Appellant,

v.

INDYMAC BANK,

Creditor - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (3:06-cv-00473-GCM)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 4, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mariano H. Ospina, Appellant Pro Se. Kristin Pickett Herber, John

Bucher Isbister, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Baltimore, Maryland; Kimberly

Ann Sheek, SHAPIRO & INGLE, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mariano H. Ospina seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s

order granting IndyMac Bank’s motion for relief from the automatic

stay and denying reconsideration. IndyMac has moved to dismiss the

appeal. Upon review of the record, we grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal

was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

The district court’s final order was entered on the

docket on October 26, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on

January 29, 2008. Because Ospina failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we grant IndyMac’s motion to dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                              Sonic Foundry, Inc.
                           Annual Report on Form 10-K
                     For the Year Ended September 30, 2002


EXHIBIT 99.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Sonic Foundry, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that:

     (1) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September
30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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.

Dated: January 24, 2003


                                       /s/ Rimas P. Buinevicius
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Name:  Rimas P. Buinevicius
                                       Title: Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
II

Calendar No. 281

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1606

To reenact chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 21, 1999

Mr. GRASSLEY introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

SEPTEMBER 22, 1999

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A BILL

To reenact chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION. 1. REENACTMENT OF CHAPTER 12 OF TITLE 11,

4 UNITED STATES CODE.

5 (a) REENACTMENT.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 12 of title 11,

7 United States Code, as reenacted by section 149 of

8 division C of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emer-
2

•S 1606 PCS

1 gency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub2 lic Law 105–277), and amended by this Act, is reen3 acted.

4 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall

5 take effect on October 1, 1999.

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 302 of the

7 Bankruptcy, Judges, United States Trustees, and Family

8 Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (28 U.S.C. 581 note) is

9 amended by striking subsection (f).

Calendar No. 281

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1606

A BILL

To reenact chapter 12 of title 11, United States

Code, and for other purposes.

SEPTEMBER 22, 1999

Read the second time and placed on the calendar
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed March 

30, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-21-00140-CV

IN RE HOUSTON AVIATION PARTNERS, LLC D/B/A MILLION AIR 

HOUSTON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

164th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-54209

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 12, 2021, relator Houston Aviation Partners, LLC d/b/a Million Air 

Houston filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code 

Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to 

compel the Honorable C. Elliott Thornton, presiding judge of the 164th District 

Court of Harris County, to vacate his November 4, 2020 denying relator’s plea to 
2

the jurisdiction, grant the same, and dismiss real party in interest’s claims against 

relator. 

Relator has not shown that it is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we 

deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Spain.
EXHIBIT
10.10   May 21, 2002  Mr. Steven Weinstein 772 Southhampton Drive Palo Alto, CA  94303   Dear Steve:  It is a distinct pleasure to offer you the position of
Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer for Vicinity Corporation
(the Company).  In this capacity you
will report to me and have a start date of June 3, 2002.  In accordance with current federal law, you will be
asked on your first day to provide documentation proving your eligibility to
work in the United States.  Upon commencement of your regular employment by the
Company, you will be eligible for the comprehensive benefits package that we
offer to our full time employees. 
Additionally, you will accrue PTO (paid time off) at a rate of 13.32
hours per month  (4 weeks per
year).  Details of this package will be
reviewed with you in your orientation on your first day of employment.  Your starting annualized base salary will be $200,000
paid semi-monthly.  In addition to your
base salary, you will be eligible to earn an annual performance bonus of up to
50% of your base salary paid in quarterly increments, based upon achievement of
Company financial objectives as well as individual objectives set by the
CEO.  For Q4 FY2002, your bonus will be
guaranteed and pro-rated against the actual salary paid during the quarter.  In addition to the above compensation you will be
granted an option to purchase 300,000 shares of the Companys common stock
under the Companys 2000 Equity Participation Plan.  The options will vest over four (4) years beginning on your date
of hire with the first 25% vesting on the twelve month anniversary of your date
of hire and 2.0833% of the remaining shares vesting on each of the next 36
monthly anniversary dates.  You will receive
the grant on the day you start with the company and the exercise price will be
the Nasdaq closing price the day before the grant.  Other details of the 2000 Equity Plan will be reviewed with you
in your orientation on your first day of regular employment.     This letter does not constitute a guarantee of employment or a contract, and either you or the Company
may terminate your employment with Vicinity Corporation at any time and for any
reason.  This offer supersedes all prior
offers, both verbal and written, and is valid through May 24, 2002.  Steve, we are very pleased to offer you this position, and
I am sure that you will play a key role in the future of Vicinity Corporation.  Please
confirm your acceptance of the offer by signing one copy of this letter
and returning it to me.   Cordially,   /s/ CHARLES W. BERGER
Charles W. Berger 
President and Chief Executive Officer     I have read and accept the above offer:   /s/ STEVEN WEINSTEIN
Steven Weinstein    cc:       Human
Resources
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders,
Merrill Lynch Developing Capital Markets Fund, Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial
statements of Merrill Lynch Developing Capital Markets
Fund, Inc. (the "Fund") for the year ended June 30, 2001
(on which we have issued our report dated August 10,
2001), we considered its internal control, including control
activities for safeguarding securities, in order to determine
our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our
opinion on the financial statements and to comply with the
requirements of Form N-SAR, and not to provide assurance
on the Fund's internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing
and maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are
required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit
pertain to the entity's objective of preparing financial
statements for external purposes that are fairly presented in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America.  Those controls include the
safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition,
use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control,
misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be
detected.  Also, projections of any evaluation of internal
control to future periods are subject to the risk that the
internal control may become inadequate because of changes
in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with policies
or procedures may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the Fund's internal control would not
necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control that
might be material weaknesses under standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
A material weakness is a condition in which the design or
operation of one or more of the internal control components
does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that
misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements
being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of
performing their assigned functions.  However, we noted
no matters involving the Fund's internal control and its
operation, including controls for safeguarding securities,
that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above as of June 30, 2001.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
the Fund, and the Securities and Exchange Commission
and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone
other than these specified parties.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

August 10, 2001
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES  As of December 31, 2010



|1. | Hillman Group Capital Trust
|-- | ---------------------------

Organized in the State of Delaware



|2. | Hillman Investment Company
|-- | --------------------------

Incorporated in the State of Delaware



|3. | The Hillman Group, Inc.
|-- | -----------------------

Incorporated in the State of Delaware



| | a. | All Points Industries, Inc.
| | -- | ---------------------------

Incorporated in the State of Florida



| | b. | Serv-A-Lite Products, Inc.
| | -- | --------------------------

Incorporated in the State of Illinois



| | c. | SunSource Integrated Services de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------

Incorporated in Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico



| | d. | The Hillman Group Canada, Ltd.
| | -- | ------------------------------

Incorporated in the Province of Ontario, Canada



| | e. | SunSub C, Inc.
| | -- | --------------

Incorporated in
the State of Delaware
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00432-CR

JACOB COMEAUX, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Criminal 

Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1584652)

December 31, 2020

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
SunSource Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-53121, 333-53123 and 333-63409) of our
report dated March 26, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules of SunSource Inc. as of December
31, 1998 and 1997, and for the three years in the period ending December 31,
1998, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 26, 1999
#### Lillian Brecker *v.*William Brecker

(CC 622)

Submitted January 16, 1940.

Decided February 27, 1940.

*Leo Loeb,*for plaintiff.

*Lee, Blessing & Steed,*for defendant.

Hatcher, Judge:

This certificate involves the sufficiency of a bill by a wife against her husband to recover one-half the property held by him, alleged to have been accumulated through their joint efforts. The circuit court overruled a demurrer to the bill.

*121The bill mentions suits for divorce and specific performance, respectively, brought by her against her husband, the first dismissed by mutual agreement and the second dismissed without prejudice to her. See *Brecker*v. *Brecker,*119 W. Va. 298, 193 S. E. 439. The more important allegations of the bill are that she married defendant in 1913 and is still his wife; that shortly after their marriage they commenced a merchandise business, which in several guises and at several places continued until in July, 1930; that this business was their “joint enterprise” to which she devoted practically all her time not necessarily consumed by “her household and family duties” (the division of her time is not further defined); that considerable money was earned by the business and invested in certain real estate, the deeds to which were for the most part made to her husband; and that “she at all times, while so engaged with him in business understood and believed and relied upon such understanding and belief, that she was an equal business partner” with him and in the properties purchased with the profits from the business.

We see no occasion now to discuss the postulate that equity will give effect to contracts, fairly made, between husband and wife. Plaintiff’s right of recovery here depends upon the bare allegations that the business conducted by herself and husband was a “joint enterprise” and that she “understood and believed * * * that she was an equal business partner” with him. She does not specify how or from whom she acquired her *understanding and belief;*and the fact, alone, that she, a wife, devoted some indefinite part of her time to helping her husband conduct the enterprise, did not make her his business partner. An elementary rule of equity practice requires that a plaintiff’s cause be stated with reasonable particularity and that an ambiguous averment be construed strongly against the pleader. *Lockhart*v. *Hoke,*85 W. Va. 382, 385, 101 S. E. 730; *Piepho*v. *Piepho,*88 Ill. 438; *Schuler*v. *Steel Co.,*77 N. J. Eq. 60, 75 Atl. 552; Fletcher, *122Eq. PL and Pr., sec. 62. Under this requirement the bill must be held insufficient.

The ruling of the circuit court is reversed; the cause remanded.

*Reversed; remanded.*