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

No. DA 1 9

- 0320

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ETTA KOEHLER DOUBEK

,
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 June 26 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file,

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

May 18 2020

05/18/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0320
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                          CUMBERLAND TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                           Year Ended December 31,
                                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               2000                    1999                    1998
                                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                     <C>                    <C>                      <C>

Average shares outstanding ................................               5,528,849               5,475,613               5,447,966

Dilutive stock options ....................................                 103,500                 134,500                    --
                                                                        -----------             -----------             -----------
Totals ....................................................               5,632,349               5,610,113               5,447,966
                                                                        ===========             ===========             ===========
Net income (loss) .........................................             $ 1,041,749             $ 1,148,070             $  (321,409)
                                                                        ===========             ===========             ===========
Diluted earnings (loss) per share amount ..................             $       .19             $       .21             $      (.06)
                                                                        ===========             ===========             ===========
</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDY O. TROTTER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

R. LOPEZ, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 11-17511

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00996-GEB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Andy O. Trotter appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Trotter contends that three evidentiary rulings by the state trial court

FILED

SEP 21 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17511

violated his constitutional rights. Trotter has not shown that the trial court’s

rulings rendered his trial fundamentally unfair or denied him a meaningful

opportunity to present a complete defense. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v.

McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 75 (1991); Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986).

Trotter next contends that the gang sentencing enhancements that he

received under Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1) were not supported by sufficient

evidence. This claim fails because the state court’s determination that there was

sufficient evidence to support the gang enhancements was not contrary to, or an

unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d)(1); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

Trotter finally contends that his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient

for failing to object to, and request admonition for, the prosecutor’s alleged

misconduct while examining witnesses and making closing arguments. The state

court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable

application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 788 (2011).

 We construe Trotter’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the

certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-

1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1746

Advantest America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128462 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128462 

 COA: 251320 

Ingham CC: 02-001161-FH

OLONDAH ALFRED WILSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 1, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0320 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 27, 2006 

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3713 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3713

 To codify the essential holdings of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) 
and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (505 U.S. 
                              833 (1992)).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2022

 Ms. Collins (for herself and Ms. Murkowski) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To codify the essential holdings of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) 
and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (505 U.S. 
                              833 (1992)).

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reproductive Choice Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    It is the purpose of this Act to codify the essential holdings of 
Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) and Planned Parenthood of 
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)).

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF ALLOWABLE STATE REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General.--A State--
            (1) may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a 
        woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before 
        fetal viability;
            (2) may restrict the ability of a woman to choose whether 
        or not to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability, unless 
        such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health 
        of the woman; and
            (3) may enact regulations to further the health or safety 
        of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
    (b) Clarification.--For purposes of this Act, unnecessary health 
regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial 
obstacle to a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy impose an undue 
burden.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
to have any effect on laws regarding conscience protection.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District of 
        Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other 
        territory or possession of the United States, and any 
        subdivision of any of the foregoing.
            (2) Undue burden.--The term ``undue burden'' means any 
        burden that places a substantial obstacle in the path of a 
        woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal 
        viability.
                                 <all>
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2338

Reelcraft Industries:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed and read this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Kolorfusion
International, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Quarterly Report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervisions,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this Quarterly Report is being prepared;(b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly
Report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and board of directors performing the equivalent functions of an
audit committee:
 (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely 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 other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
controls over financial reporting; and
 Date: November 14, 2005
    
    By: /s/ Stephen NagelStephen NagelPresident and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
         TECHNISOURCE, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
         IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,890,801
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,470,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,741,417
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,972,393
<PP&E>                                           5,784,370
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,323,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,383,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,743,308
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           103,850
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,185,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,383,098
<SALES>                                        110,058,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,058,994
<CGS>                                           80,553,853
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,553,853
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                               26,850,050
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                257,880
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,936,285
 <INCOME-TAX>                                    1,266,634
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,669,651
 <DISCONTINUED>                                          0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
 <CHANGES>                                               0
 <NET-INCOME>                                    1,669,651
 <EPS-BASIC>                                          0.16
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.16


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00836

- CR Michael MACIEL , Appellant

v. The The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR9607W Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 14, 2015
DIS MISSED
On D ecember 15 , 2014, this court issued an order stating t his appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record on or before January 14, 2015

. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174, 175

- 76 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). Appellant’s counsel filed a response in which he states that he has reviewed the clerk’s record and “can find no right of appeal” for appellant; counsel concedes that the a ppeal must be dismissed. In light of the record presented, we agree with appellant’s counsel that Rule04

- 14

- 00836

- CR 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d). The record does not contain a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal; to the contrary, the trial court certification in the record states “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that the defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM Do not publish

- 2

-
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2060

Arconic, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-10478

Textron Specialized Vehicles:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1713

Northern Tool & Equipment:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn