alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0516 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RAY ALLEN ROBERTS,

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 February 20 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

January 12 2024

01/12/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0516
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                           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 Quarterly Report of Bright Horizons Family Solutions (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Elizabeth J. Boland, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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; 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/ Elizabeth J. Boland
-----------------------------
Elizabeth J. Boland
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
#### John Davison ROGERS v. CIGNA INSURANCE COMP. OF TEXAS.

No. 01-93-00549-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Oct. 26, 1993.

William T. Powell, Houston, Robert G. Clark, Abilene, for appellant.

Gary A. Scarzafava, Kathleen Walsh Beime, Annelie Menke, Daniel Garcia, Houston, for appellee.

Before OLIVER-PARROTT, C.J., and O’CONNOR and WILSON, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Court today considered the appellee’s motion to require the appellant to increase the cash deposit filed in lieu of appeal bond, to require posting of adequate appeal bond, or alternatively, to dismiss appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex.R.App.P. 49(a). The appel-lee asks this Court to order the appellant to increase the cash deposit, filed in lieu of an appeal bond, by $6,074.53 to cover costs assessed by the trial court and the cost ($53.00) of a supplemental transcript.

This is an appeal from a directed verdict, granted in response to the defendant’s (ap-pellee’s) motion at the conclusion of the evidence. The judgment of the trial court ordered that the plaintiff (appellant) take nothing and assessed court costs against him. The appellant filed a cash deposit of $1,000.00 in lieu of an appeal bond.

The appeal bond covers the costs that have accrued in the trial court, as well as the cost of the statement of facts and transcript. Tex.R.App.P. 46(a); *see Tapiador v. North American Lloyds,*772 S.W.2d 954, 955 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1989) (order) (purpose of cost bond is to give security that appellant shall pay costs accrued in trial court, quoting rule 46(a)).

The supplemental transcript shows that the accrued costs and fees in the ease are $13,344.68. All these fees have been paid by the parties. The appellee asks that we require the appellant to cover the part of the costs that the appellee has paid. Those costs *182are largely the costs of depositions taken in the case.

According to the appellee’s motion, it has paid $6,074.53 for depositions, which are considered court costs. *See Wallace v. Briggs,*162 Tex. 485, 348 S.W.2d 523, 527 (1961, orig. proceeding) (expense of taking depositions is an item of court costs); *Shenandoah Assoc, v. J & K Properties, Inc.,*741 S.W.2d 470, 487 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1987, writ denied) (deposition costs listed as recoverable court cost). We find that one of the depositions taken in the case was already paid for by the appellant ($862.60).

To arrive at the additional amount of security, we start with $6,074.53 (the total amount paid for depositions) from which we subtract $862.60 (the amount paid by the appellant) to get $5,211.93. To that amount we add $53.00 (the costs of the supplemental transcript) for a total of $5,264.93. Finally, we subtract the $1,000 (the cash already posted by the appellant), to arrive at $4,264.93.

Accordingly, we order the appellant to post an additional cash deposit or appeal bond in an amount of $4,264.93 no later than 20 days after this order is served. Tex.R.App.P. 49(c).

It is so ORDERED.
SECOND SUPPLEMENT DATED APRIL 14, 2000 TO THE

                 CONFIDENTIAL PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM DATED

                                FEBRUARY 25, 2000

                   FLORIDA LITHOTRIPTERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I

                  Lithotripters,  Inc., a North Carolina corporation  ("Litho"),
by this Second Supplement hereby amends and supplements its Confidential Private
Placement  Memorandum dated February 25, 2000, as amended and supplemented  (the
"Memorandum").  Capitalized  terms  used  herein  are  defined  in the  Glossary
appearing in the Memorandum.  Persons who have subscribed for or are considering
an investment in the Units offered by the  Memorandum  should  carefully  review
this Second Supplement.

Extension of the Offering

                  Pursuant to the authority given to Litho in the Memorandum, it
hereby elects to extend the offering termination date to May 2, 2000 (or earlier
in the  discretion  of  Litho,  upon the sale of all  Units as  provided  in the
Memorandum).
#### Ronald F. WEINLOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41078.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 20, 1989.

Ronald F. Weinlood, Pacific, pro se.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and CLARK and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial, after evidentiary hearing, of Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion for post-conviction relief.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2667

Snow Joe LLC:

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4297 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4297

     To repeal the VA Asset and Infrastructure Review Act of 2018.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2022

 Mr. Manchin (for himself, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Heinrich, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
Lujan, Mr. Thune, and Ms. Hassan) introduced the following bill; which 
   was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To repeal the VA Asset and Infrastructure Review Act of 2018.

    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 ``Elimination of the VA Asset and 
Infrastructure Review (AIR) Commission Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF ASSET AND INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW COMMISSION OF 
              DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    The VA Asset and Infrastructure Review Act of 2018 (subtitle A of 
title II of Public Law 115-182; 38 U.S.C. 8122 note) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
****

**MOTOR MODEL: RF500**

# image1.jpeg

# image2.jpeg

# image3.jpeg

# image4.png

# image5.png
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Ricky LACEY, Defendant/Appellant. Ricky LACEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 66208, 69116.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 14, 1996.

Rosaiynn Koch, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Blegen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A jury found defendant guilty of felony stealing. Section 570.030, RSMol994. The trial court sentenced him as a persistent offender to twelve years.

Defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, he alleges the trial court committed plain error in permitting the State to introduce hearsay evidence. Second, he alleges his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the State’s strikes of African-American venirepersons.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. Rule 30.25(b). The judgment of the motion court on the Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. Ride 84.16(b).

The judgments of the trial court and motion court are affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Luther E. Proper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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,; 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/ Luther E. Proper
|                       
|Luther E. Proper       
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 9, 2010       

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15284-15285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7211]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Southwest Oregon Provincial Interagency Executive Committee 
(PIEC), Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Southwest Oregon PIEC Advisory Committee will meet on 
April 20, 1995 at the Medford Bureau of Land Management Office, 3040 
Biddle Road, Medford, Oregon. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and 
continue until 4:00 p.m. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Context of the Advisory Committee; including background on the 
President's Forest Plan; (2) Introduction of members and orientation; 
(3) Meeting operating guidelines; (4) Mission and purpose of the 
Province Advisory Committee and its relationship to the PIEC; (5) Brief 
presentation by Advisory Committee members on who they represent; and 
(6) Open public forum. All Southwest Oregon Province Advisory Committee 
meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to 
attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions regarding this meeting to Chuck Anderson, Province 
Advisory Committee staff, USDA, Rogue River National Forest, P.O. Box 
520, Medford, Oregon 97501, 503-858-2322.

    [[Page 15285]] Dated: March 17, 1995.
James T. Gladen,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 95-7211 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices of meetings published under

the ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (Pub.

L. 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).

Sunshine Act Meetings Federal Register

14813

Vol. 60, No. 53

Monday, March 20, 1995

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, April

7, 1995.

PLACE: 2033 K St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 8th Floor Hearing Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance

Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean A. Webb, 202–254–6314.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–6943 Filed 3–16–95; 2:49 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, April

14, 1995.

PLACE: 2033 K St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 8th Floor Hearing Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance

Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean A. Webb, 202–254–6314.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–6944 Filed 3–16–95; 2:49 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, April

21, 1995.

PLACE: 2033 K St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 8th Floor Hearing Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance

Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean A. Webb, 202–254–6314/

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–6945 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, April

28, 1995.

PLACE: 2033 K St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 8th Floor Hearing Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance

Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean A. Webb, 202–254–6314.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–6946 Filed 3–16–95; 2:49 p.m.]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY

COMMISSION

‘‘FEDERAL REGISTER’’ CITATION OF

PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: March 10,

1995, 60 FR 13209.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

MEETING: March 15, 1995, 10:00 a.m.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: The following

Docket Number has been added on the

Agenda scheduled for March 15, 1995:

Item No., Docket No. and Company

CAG–32—RP95–202–000, Sea Robin Pipeline

Company

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–6970 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

NOTICE

Appellate case name: Carolyn Sovann v. Residence at Garden Oaks

Appellate case number: 01-18-00465-CV

Trial court case number: 1110183

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County

Appellant, Carolyn Sovann, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s final 

judgment signed on May 29, 2018. The clerk’s record filed in this Court includes 

appellant’s “Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond

in Justice Court” filed in the trial court proceedings. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(a), (b), (d); 

see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 502.3, 510.9(c). The clerk’s record does not reflect that any 

motion to require appellant to pay costs or any contest to appellant’s statement was filed. 

See id. 145(f), 502.3(d), 510.9(c)(2).

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to make an entry in this 

Court’s records that appellant is allowed to proceed on appeal without payment of 

costs. See id. 145(a), (c); TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1. 

Appellant also has filed “a motion to stay” in which she seeks additional time to 

pay the required fees. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. Because appellant may proceed on appeal 

without payment of costs, the motion is dismissed as moot.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting for the Court

Date: June 19, 2018
EXHIBIT 21.1
 NAME
    
    INCORPORATIONGLBL Holdings, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGIL Mauritius Holdings, Ltd.
    
    MauritiusGLBL Brasil Oleodutos e Servicos Ltda.
    
    BrazilGlobal Al Rushaid Offshore Company, Ltd. f/k/a Subtec Saudi Arabia Limited
    
    Saudi ArabiaGlobal Asia Pacific Industries, Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaGlobal Construction Mauritius Services, Ltd.
    
    MauritiusGlobal Divers and Contractors, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Industries (B)Sdn. Bhd.
    
    BruneiGlobal Industries Asia Pacific Pte, Ltd.
    
    SingaporeGlobal Industries Australia Holding Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaGlobal Industries International, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Industries International, L.P.
    
    Cayman IslandsGlobal Industries Mexico Holdings, S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoGlobal Industries Offshore (Thailand), Ltd.
    
    ThailandGlobal Industries Offshore Hong Kong Limited
    
    Hong KongGlobal Industries Offshore Labuan Ltd.
    
    LabuanGlobal Industries Offshore Netherlands, BV
    
    The NetherlandsGlobal Industries Offshore Services, S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoGlobal Industries Offshore Spain, S.L.
    
    SpainGlobal Industries Offshore, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Industries Services, S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoGlobal International Vessels, Ltd.
    
    Cayman IslandsGlobal Movible Offshore, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Offhsore (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaGlobal Offshore International Abu Dhabi LLC
    
    United Arab EmiratesGlobal Offshore International, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Offshore International, Ltd.
    
    Cayman IslandsGlobal Offshore Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoGlobal Offshore, Pty. Ltd.
    
    AustraliaGlobal Pipelines Plus (Nigeria), Ltd.
    
    NigeriaGlobal Pipelines Plus, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Vessels Mauritius, Ltd.
    
    MauritiusGlobal Vessels Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoPipelines, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaPT Global Industries Asia
    
    IndonesiaSubtec Asia Limited
    
    Isle of ManSubtec Marine Services Limited
    
    CyprusSubtec Middle East Limited
    
    DelawareSubtec National, L.L.C.
    
    United Arab EmiratesSubtec Offshore Support, Ltd.
    
    Cyprus
Form of Amd 1 to the Aleris Corp 2010 Equity Incentive Plan Director RSU



 Exhibit 10.23.1 

ALERIS CORPORATION 
 2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Form of 

AMENDMENT 1 TO THE 
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT 

                       
     , 2011 
 TO: 
 FROM: Aleris Corporation (formerly “Aleris Holding Company”) 
  

	Re:	Amendment 1 to Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement 

 On [    ], 2010, you were granted Restricted Stock Units of Aleris Corporation (the “Company”) pursuant to an Award Agreement issued under the Company’s 2010 Equity
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). 
 In light of the Company becoming a public company, we have amended, restated and renamed the
Plan as the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan and we have mutually agreed to amend the terms of your Award Agreement, effective immediately prior to the effectiveness of a 2011 initial public offering of the Company (the “IPO), as follows: 

 

	1.	Section 2. Settlement. The last two sentences of Section 2 will be deleted. 


 

	2.	Section 3. Early Termination of the Restricted Stock Units. The reference to Plan Section 11 is amended to Plan Section 12.


  

	3.	Section 4. Company Call Right. Section 4 is deleted. 

  

	4.	Section 5. Restricted Stock Units Subject to Plan and Stockholders Agreement. Section 5 is amended to change the heading to read Restricted Stock Units
Subject to Plan and to amend Sections 5 (a) and (b) to read as follows:  

  

	 	(a)	Participant Acknowledgements. By entering into this Award Agreement, you agree and acknowledge that (i) the Restricted Stock Units are subject in all
respects to the Plan; (ii) the Restricted Stock Units are subject to Plan provisions under which, in certain circumstances, the Committee may terminate your Restricted Stock Units and/or make adjustments to the kind and/or number of shares or
property underlying the Restricted Stock Units; and (iii) the Committee has discretion to interpret and administer the Plan and this Award Agreement and its judgments made in accordance with the Plan are final. 


 

	 	(b)	Conflicts. In the event of a conflict between any term or provision contained herein and a term or provision of the Plan, the term or provision contained in the
Plan shall control. 

  
 8149600.2









	5.	Sections (a) and (f) of the Participant Acknowledgments are deleted. 


 

	6.	Effective Date of this Amendment. This Amendment 1 is effective immediately prior to the effectiveness of the IPO. 


 

	7.	Continued Terms of Restricted Stock Units. Except as otherwise amended in this Agreement, your restricted stock units remain subject in all respects to the terms
and conditions of the Award Agreement and the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan and you acknowledge that a copy of the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan has been provided to you. 

 Please indicate your acceptance of this Amendment to the Award Agreement with respect to your Restricted Stock Units by signing and returning a copy of this Amendment to the address set forth below as
soon as practicable. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	  
	Christopher R. Clegg
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

  

	
	Agreed to and Accepted by:
	
	  


  
 2 


 8149600.2