alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0518 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT CRAIG BRITZIUS,

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 December 23 , 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

November 15 2022

11/15/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0518
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 Annual Report of CombiMatrix Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period
ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2009, (the "Report"), I, Scott R. Burell, Chief Financial 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:

1.     The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.     The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By:

/s/ SCOTT R. BURELL Scott R. Burell
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)March 20, 2009


---



QuickLinks
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00095

- CV

Ellen Jones , Appellant

v.

Paul Wright , Appellee

FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. C2018

- 2063D , THE HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties have filed a Joint M otion to Set Aside Trial Court ’ s Final Judgment

Without Regard to the M erits and Remand Case to Trial Court.

W e gra nt the motion, set aside the trial court ’ s judgment, and remand this cause to

the trial cour t fo r entry of an agreed order of dismissal with prejudice in accordance with the

agreement of the parties. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, C hief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Set A side and Remanded

Filed: September 2 8 , 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from Cadmus
Communications   Corporation's  Consolidated  Balance  Sheets  and  Consolidated
Statements  of Income and is  qualified  in its  entirety by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                 895
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       76,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                         2,242
<INVENTORY>                                         27,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   110,400
<PP&E>                                             238,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                     108,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     293,697
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               58,656
<BONDS>                                            106,962
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                3,957
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                         107,861
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       293,697
<SALES>                                             99,784
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    99,784
<CGS>                                               79,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       93,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       343
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       138
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      4,116
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,585
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  2,531
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         2,531
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .31
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

VINCENT STALLMAN, DOC #379838, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D17-1714 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed August 24, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; William H. Burgess, III, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard J. D'Amico, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6932

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LANTIS JETON YOUNG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

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

Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00131-GCM-1)

Submitted: October 31, 2014 Decided: November 14, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lantis Jeton Young, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lantis Jeton Young seeks to appeal his life sentence 

imposed in 2003. At the time Young’s judgment of conviction was 

entered on the docket, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

required a defendant in a criminal case to file his notice of 

appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). With or without a motion, upon a showing 

of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant 

an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 

353 (4th Cir. 1985). 

The district court entered judgment on September 3, 

2003. Young filed his notice of appeal, at the earliest, June 

10, 2014. Because Young failed to file a timely notice of 

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

dismiss the appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7688

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PAUL MORRIS PINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge; William M. Catoe, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (CR-94-720, CA-96-

1431-21-6-21AK)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: July 31, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Morris Pinson, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

Appellant's § 2255 motion, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Pinson, Nos. CR-94-720; CA-96-1431-21-6-21AK (D.S.C. Oct. 9, 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF KAYENTA KREATIONS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001011395
<NAME> KAYENTA KREATIONS, INC.

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,036                   4,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,855                   4,250
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,653                   4,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           800                     500
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,853                   4,498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,653                   4,998
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     7                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   372                       2
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   365                       2
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (365)                     (2)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (365)                   (365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (365)                     (2)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)                  (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)                  (0.00)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Anne Wick, EPA Diesel Engine Consent Decree Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 2242A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,                         *e-mail: wick.anne@epa.gov.*

Maureen Katz,

Assistant Chief, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Environmental Enforcement Section.

[FR Doc. 2010-12324 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
Exhibit 10.46 (2)


Confirmation Letter


 


The signatory below, ______________ (Personal ID Card No.: ______________),
hereby designates and instructs _______________, a limited liability company incorporated in accordance with the law of British
Virgin Island (the “Shareholder”), to subscribe to and purchase, overseas, ____________ shares of stock of The Future
Education Group (the “Company”) and execute Subscription Agreement so as to become the shareholder of the Company.


 


Hence the confirmation.


 


 


	 	Signature:
	 	 
	 	 
	 	__________________, 2016
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Harold Gingold, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County,

June 10, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Blum, Ross, Weisler, Bergstein, Golden & Weingold*for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

C. Raymond Radigan, J.

The executrix of this estate, having failed to pay the entire New York estate tax within nine months from the date of the decedent’s death, requests that an extension to pay be retroactively granted and penalties imposed for late payment be remitted.

The decedent died on May 31, 1983, and on August 29, 1984, the executrix paid $126,000 in anticipation of the New York estate tax, which payment was estimated to be 91% of the total tax due. A further payment in the amount of $9,033 was made on October 14, 1986, which represented the balance of the principal tax liability. The State Tax Commission subsequently imposed a penalty in the amount of $5,225.18 for late payment.

The executrix argues that because the estate tax exceeds *8225% of the net estate and that 91% was paid within 15 months of the decedent’s death and the remainder was paid well within four years of death, an extension should be granted retroactively and the penalty remitted. She contends that section 962 (k) (6) of the Tax Law mandates that an extension shall be granted when the tax exceeds 5% of the net estate or where payment of the tax imposes undue hardship. It is her position that a tax which here exceeds 7% of the net estate imposes an undue hardship and therefore the "spirit” of the law should allow the granting of an extension retroactively.

The Tax Commission opposes the within motion by stating that the application for an extension was not made within nine months of the date of decedent’s death, and was therefore not timely. It further contends that there is no "retroactive” relief in the present law.

Section 962 (k) (5) (A) of the Tax Law provides that "If the tax is not paid within nine months from the date of death of the decedent or if the tax is not paid within the period or in accordance with the terms of an extension granted pursuant to law, unless it is shown to the surrogate that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, there shall be added to the amount of tax due, a penalty”.

Here, an extension was not timely requested. Recently, this court found that it did not have the authority to extend the time for payment of New York estate tax; that the Legislature has made the extension of time for such payments a prerogative of the State Tax Commission *(Matter of*Froehlich, 98 Misc 2d 229). If this court is not empowered to grant a timely extension, then clearly it may not grant a retroactive extension of time to pay the estate tax herein. Furthermore, the executrix has submitted no proof that her delay in payment was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

A review of the tax proceedings reveals that at all times there were sufficient assets available to pay all estate taxes due. Therefore, this court must deny petitioner’s application to grant an extension to pay taxes retroactively and to remit the penalties herein.
#### ADAMS & CHILDERS v. PACKER & HARRISON.

(Filed 10 June, 1927.)

Process — Summons—Nonresidents — Service — Attachment — Courts— Jurisdiction — Judgments.

Where service of summons cannot be personally had upon a nonresident or his agent sufficient for the purpose, it is necessary to a valid service by publication that he has property within the jurisidiction of our court, and that the same be attached in order to confer the jurisdiction, and in that case a judgment *in personam*has no effect, but only one *m rem*is valid.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Shaw, J.,*at March Term, 1927, of Burr-COMBE.

Civil action, brought by plaintiffs, citizens of North Carolina, against the defendants, citizens of the State of Pennsylvania, to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, or broker’s commissions in connection with a real estate transaction. No process has been served on the defendants and no warrant of attachment has been issued against their property situate in this State. Upon an attempted service by publication, the defendants entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss the action for want of proper service. Motion allowed, and plaintiffs appeal.

*Joseph W. Little for plaintifs.*

*A. Sail Johnston and W. G. Krv'im, for defendants.*

*49Stacy, C. J.,

after stating tbe case: In the absence of personal service duly had on a nonresident defendant in an action *in personam,*substituted service by publication is effectual only when property in this State, belonging to the defendant, is brought under the control of the court by some appropriate process, and even then such service extends only to the property seized, or brought under control of the court, as no personal judgment can be rendered in such a case. *Everitt v. Austin,*169 N. C., 622; *Winfree v. Bagley,*102 N. C., 515.

Speaking to the subject in *Long v. Ins. Co.,*114 N. C., 466, *Clark, J.,*delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “Where the enforeemejit of a debt or other personal liability is sought by subjecting property of the nonresidents, the jurisdiction is based upon the seizure of the property, and only extends to the property attached.”

And in *Hess v. Pawloski,*71 L. Ed., ..., decided 16 May, 1927, it was said: “The process of a court' of one state cannot run into another and summon a party there domiciled to respond to proceedings against him. Notice sent outside the State, to a nonresident is unavailing to give jurisdiction in an action against him personally for money recovery. *Pennoyer v. Neff,*95 U. S., 714. There must be actual service within the State of notice upon him, or upon some one authorized to accept service for him. *Goldey v. Morning News,*156 U. S., 518. A personal judgment rendered against a nonresident who has neither been served with process nor appeared in the §uit is without validity. *McDonald v. Mabee,*243 U. S., 90.”

No property having been seized or brought under the control of the court, and no personal service having been had upon the defendants, it would seem that the judgment dismissing the present action is correct, and that it ought to be upheld.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.3

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

(a) the Amendment No. 1 to Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2011 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                     |  |  |  | 
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Mark S. Ordan      
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Mark S. Ordan          
|Date: March 15, 2012 |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5019 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5019

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1335 Jefferson Road in Rochester, New York, as the ``Specialist 
                 Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST THEODORE MATTHEW GLENDE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1335 Jefferson Road in Rochester, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5019

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1335 Jefferson Road in Rochester, New York, as the ``Specialist 
                 Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office''.
```