alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[J
- 116
- 2019] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

ELWOOD SMALL , Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 8 EAP 201 9 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court entered on Oct. 28, 2018 at No. 250 EDA 2018 reversing the Order entered on Dec. 14, 2017 and remanding to the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No. CP

- 51

- CR

0521601

- 1982. SUBMITTED: November 18, 2019

CONCURRING AND DISSE NTING OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: October 1, 2020 I join Parts I, II, and III(B) of the majority opinion and support the outcome. I respectfully differ, however, with the majority’s decision, in Part III(A), to overrule this Court’s longstanding precedent establishing and maintaining a presumption that materials that are available in public records could be discovered via a diligent inquiry.
I continue to believ e this presumption reflects a reasonable interpretation of Section 9545(b)(1)(ii)’s requirement that, to implicate the relevant exception to the PCRA’s one

- year time bar, newly

- discovered facts “could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due dilige nce.” 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(ii). Clearly, the Legislature’s prescription for diligence demonstrates its intention to incorporate a form of constructive notice into the statute, and I fail to see how an interpretation recognizing that, as a general rule, matters of public record can be discovered through a diligent inquiry distorts this[J

- 116

- 2019] [M.O.

- Wecht, J.]

- 2

legislative design or frustrates the legislative purpose. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at
24

- 25. That said, I favor several refinements to the presumption, in that I be lieve its application should depend, in the first instance, on whether inquiry should have been focused on the relevant subjection matter. Accord Saint John's University, New York v. Bolton, 757 F. Supp. 2d 144, 192 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (“New York courts impute knowledge of the contents of a public record to a party when the party has actual knowledge of facts giving it reason to believe that it has an interest in the contents of the records, and a reasonably prudent person with such an interest would inve stigate those records if given an opportunity to do so.”) . Additionally, to the degree that some of this Court’s decisions portray the presumption as irrebuttable, I would also support an adjustment reflecting that a petitioner should be permitted to rebu t the presumption by demonstrating why, although relevant materials are matters of public record, he nevertheless exercised diligence but
could not discover them.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 April 28, 2014

p0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148153

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148153

COA: 314642

Macomb CC: 2011-004408-FH

DAVID JOHN WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 8, 2013 

order 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.
#### LANDRY v. WHITE.

No. 14455.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 22, 1933.

For original opinion, see 146 *So. 509.*

Arthur Landry, of New Orleans, in pro. per.

Raeiviteh & Hiekerson, of New Orleans, for appellant.

JANVIER, Judge.

We granted a rehearing in this matter because of the apparent belief by plaintiff that our findings evidenced an unwillingness to accept as true his statements with reference to the circumstances surrounding his alleged employment as attorney at law by defendant.

*105We have no intention of in any way indicating any disbelief on our part in the truth of the statements made, and a further examination of the record convinces us that the entire controversy arises as the result of a misunderstanding by plaintiff of the attitude of defendant.

Conceding that what plaintiff says is true we do not find in the record any statements showing an unequivocable contract of employment, and, while it may be that it is not necessary in the usual case that the contract under which an attorney is employed be entered into with any particular formality or solemnity, we believe that, where an attorney undertakes to represent one person and to collect his fee from another, he should make certain that that other understands that he is being relied upon for the payment of the fee. Here Mr. Landry undoubtedly believed that Mr. White intended to employ him and to pay the fee which would otherwise have been due by his brother, but even Mr. Landry does not contend that Mr. White said so in so many words, and he relies on the circumstances surrounding the employment as constituting a contract between himself and Mr. White, the defendant. For the reasons given in our original opinion (146 So. 509) we do not believe that those circumstances were such as to justify the belief on Mr. Landry’s part that he was being so employed.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that our original decree be, and it is, reinstated.

Original decree reinstated.
EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

PHC, Inc.
Peabody, MA


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No.'s 333-2246, 333-41494, 333-76137 and 333-117146) and
Form S-8 (No  333-102402)  of PHC,  Inc.  of our report  dated  August 12,  2004
(except with  respect to the matter  discussed in Note M as to which the date is
September 20, 2004). Relating to the consolidated  financial  statements,  which
appears in the Annual Report to the Shareholders,  which is incorporated in this
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
Boston, MA

September 23, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTURO JUAN WHITE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-13238

v. HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

GREG McQUIGGIN,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

JUDGMENT

The above entitled matter having come before the Court on a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, Honorable Denise Page Hood, a United States District Court Judge,

presiding, and in accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on

November 30, 2011.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that a Certificate of Appealability is

GRANTED in accordance to the opinion.

Dated at Detroit, Michigan, this 30th, day of November , 2011.

DAVID J. WEAVER 

CLERK OF THE COURT

APPROVED:

BY: s/Julie Owens

DEPUTY CLERK 

s/Denise Page Hood

HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-13238-DPH-MAR Doc # 10 Filed 11/30/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 2817
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





PHC, Inc.


Peabody, MA.





We hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-2246, 333-41494, 333-76137, 333-117146 and 333-141431) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-123842 and  333-149579) of PHC, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated September 24, 2010, relating to the consolidated  financial statements which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.














/s/  BDO USA, LLP


Boston, MA


September 24, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re: Refrigerant Compressors Case No. 2:09-md-02042

Antitrust Litigation

Honorable Sean F. Cox

United States District Court

___________________________/

ORDER 

REGARDING FILING OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

GAFFET AND STRONG ELECTRIC “TAG-ALONG” ACTIONS

Currently pending before this Court are motions seeking to dismiss the Direct Purchaser

Plaintiffs’ Master Amended Complaint and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated

Amended Complaint.

After those motions were filed, two additional “tag-along” actions were transferred to

this Court by the MDL Panel: 1) Strong Electric v. Tecumseh Products Company et al. (Case

No. 10-00448); and 2) Gaffet v. Tecumseh Products Company et al. (Case No. 10-00443). (See

Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-3), Docket Entry No. 227). 

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 1, “[w]ithin thirty (30) days after any transfer to

this Court of a ‘tag-along’ action, Defendants may file or renew motions with respect to such

actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.” (Docket Entry No. 152 at 10). 

Due to no fault of the parties in this action, although Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-3)

was issued by the MDL Panel on March 16, 2011, it was not entered on the docket in this action

until April 6, 2011. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that any motions to dismiss the Gaffett or

Strong Electric actions shall be filed no later than May 6, 2011. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that Defendants request the Court to

2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 231 Filed 04/13/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 5888
extend the deadline for filing motions to dismiss the Gaffett or Strong Electric actions until after

this Court has ruled on the pending motions to dismiss (see Docket Entry Nos. 228 & 299), those

requests are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: April 13, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

April 13, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 231 Filed 04/13/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 5889
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JODIE PERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRAD MELLOR, et al,

Defendants.

/

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-10966

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application of Appointment of Counsel. Only in rare

circumstances, is it the practice of this Court to attempt to obtain counsel. Now therefore;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application is DENIED.

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 17, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Jodie Perry, 5684

Huntington, Ypsilanti, MI 48197 and the attorneys of record on this date, March 17,

2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-10966-AC-DAS Doc # 4 Filed 03/17/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 10
2:09-cv-12929-MOB-MAR Doc # 17 Filed 01/13/10 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 105
2:09-cv-12929-MOB-MAR Doc # 17 Filed 01/13/10 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 106
2:09-cv-12929-MOB-MAR Doc # 17 Filed 01/13/10 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 107
2:09-cv-12929-MOB-MAR Doc # 17 Filed 01/13/10 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 108
2:09-cv-12929-MOB-MAR Doc # 17 Filed 01/13/10 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 109
#### Jesus REICH-BACOT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 317-96.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Oct. 30, 1996.

Bob Abbott, Coppell, for appellant.

Pamela Sullivan Berbanier, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas, Matthew Paul, State’s Attorney, Austin, for appellee.

Before the court en banc.

*OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOB DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to confinement for life and a $10,-*962000 fine. Tex.Penal Code § 19.04(a)(1). The Court of Appeals found the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on self defense. *Reich-Bacot v. State,*914 S.W.2d 666, 668-669 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1996). The Court of Appeals did not perform a harm analysis but instead summarily reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. *Id,*914 S.W.2d at 669.

In *Hamel v. State,*916 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Tex.Cr.App.1996), we held a harm analysis under *Almanza v. State,*686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), was appropriate in cases where the trial judge erred in refusing a charge on a defensive theory. *See generally,*Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art 36.19; *and, Atkinson v. State,*923 S.W.2d 21, 25-27 (Tex.Cr.App.1996). Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court without first conducting a harm analysis.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court to conduct such a harm analysis.

Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated; cause remanded to Court of Appeals.

McCORMICK, P.J., and KELLER, J., dissent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTHS OF MARCH AND

APRIL, 2011, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the months of March and April,

2011. Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such notice, counsel

should be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is counsel's responsibility

in all cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk, Marilyn Orem, at 234-

5147, to ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise notified, this Court

commences trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 10-11184 HAYDEN V. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

2. 09-13734 VIED, ET.AL V. CONTINENTAL TIRE NORTH AMERICA

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: February 7, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on February 7, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 7 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.

2:09-cv-13734-PJD-DAS Doc # 78 Filed 02/07/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 3619
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Arkson Nutraceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert Auduon, President 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, to my knowledge:

     1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the six month
          period ended December 31, 2007 (the "Quarterly Report"), fully
          complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated:  February 12, 2007
                                       /s/ Robert Auduon
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Robert Auduon
                                       President and Principal Executive Officer
NO. ______________

ASEL ABDYGAPPAROVA § IN THE COURT OF

§

VS. § CRIMINAL APPEALS

§

STATE OF TEXAS § OF TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO

FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes ASEL ABDYGAPPAROVA, Appellant in the above styled and 

numbered cause, and moves for an extension of time of 20 days to file a petition 

for discretionary review, and for good cause shows the following:

1. On JUNE 4, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's 

conviction. ASEL ABDYGAPPAROVA v. State, 04-14-00393-CR. This petition 

is therefore due on July 26, 2015.

2. Counsel has been unable to complete the petition for the following 

reasons: Counsel has had trouble contacting the appellant. Also, this counsel has 

been involved in an accelerated CPS appeal. Further, counsel has been preparing 

for two trials.

3. Defendant is currently incarcerated.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, appellant respectfully 

requests an extension of 20 days, i.e. until July 26, 2015, to file a petition for 

PD-0916-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/20/2015 12:00:00 AM

Accepted 7/22/2015 4:03:11 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
discretionary review.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN SHEFFIELD

PC

PO Box 276343

San Antonio, Texas 78227

Tel: (210) 697-9090

Fax: (210) 591-7311

By:/s/Shawn Sheffield 

Shawn Sheffield

State Bar No. 24008020

Attorney for DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on July 19, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above

and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Bexar

County, Texas.

/s/Shawn Sheffield 

Shawn Sheffield
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

L. T. Tucker, Jr.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-12942

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

J. Shaheen, Prison Guard,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the

pleadings, including the Report and Recommendation and any objections thereto, the Court hereby

ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is further

ordered that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs is DENIED

pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Plaintiff has thirty (30) days

from the date of this Order to submit the entire filing fee or suffer dismissal without prejudice of this

case.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: September 30, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel

of record on September 30, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12942-NGE-CEB Doc # 6 Filed 09/30/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 107
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000056509-NOV-201109:35 AM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAMI SHUTI,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil No. 2:09cv11984

MICHAEL AYTES, Acting Director, HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; MAG. JUDGE VIRGINIA M. MORGAN

ROBERT M. COWAN, Director, Missouri

Service Center, United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services; ERIC HOLDER, JR., Attorney

General of the United States; JANET NAPOLITANO,

Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 

Defendants.

____________________________________________/

STIPULATED ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Sami Shuti and defendants Michael Aytes, et al., by and through their undersigned

attorneys, stipulate to the entry of an order dismissing the above-captioned case with prejudice and

with each party bearing his or her own costs and attorney fees.

MARGARET W. WONG & TERRENCE BERG

ASSOCIATES United States Attorney

s/Scott Bretton (with consent) s/Derri T. Thomas 

SCOTT BRATTON DERRI T. THOMAS (P53439)

Attorneys for Plaintiff Assistant U.S. Attorney

3150 Chester Avenue 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Detroit, MI 48226-3211

(216) 566-9908 (313) 226-9153

bratton@imwong.com derri.thomas@usdoj.gov

Dated: August 12, 2009 Dated: August 12, 2009

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: August 12, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

August 12, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11984-PJD-VMM Doc # 6 Filed 08/12/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 76
#### Cornelius L. WATSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 70406.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 22, 1996.

*851Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for movant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Assistant Attorney, Jefferson City, for respondent/respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the motion court’s dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Don R. Kania, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual report of FEI Company on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such annual report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of FEI Company.



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ DON R. KANIA                     
|    |  | Don R. Kania                         
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

February 19,
2010



EX  32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case Number 09-50435-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

JOSEPH DAVIS, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________/ 

ORDER REJECTING PROPOSED ORDER DIRECTING GARNISHMENT

On April 14, 2009, upon receiving Plaintiff’s application, the Court issued a continuing writ

of garnishment as to Defendant Joseph Davis and proposed garnishee Delta Tube. On or about April

27, 2009, Delta Tube answered, stating in part that Defendant had been laid off from Delta Tube

effective April 20, 2009. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s proposed order directing Delta Tube

to pay, which states in part, “the garnishee having filed its answer stating that Joseph Davis is an

employee, no objection, claim for exemption or motion to quash having been filed. . . .” Notably,

the proposed order is inaccurate as Delta Tube did not state that Defendant “is an employee”; rather,

Delta Tube stated that Defendant had been laid off. Given the inaccuracy of the proposed order, and

the apparent lack of necessity for any objection or claim for exemptions under such circumstances,

Plaintiff’s proposed order will be rejected.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s proposed order is REJECTED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: January 12, 2010

1:09-mc-50435-TLL-PJK Doc # 4 Filed 01/12/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 14
-2-

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on January 12, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-mc-50435-TLL-PJK Doc # 4 Filed 01/12/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0473

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

PHILIP BRYSON GRIMSHAW,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until November 30, 2022, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant's opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

October 27 2022

10/27/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0473