alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|  |
|--|
|  |  |  |
|  |   | The Cincinnati Insurance Company n The Cincinnati Indemnity CompanyThe Cincinnati Casualty Company n The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance CompanyThe Cincinnati Life Insurance Company n CFC Investment Company n CSU Producer Resources Inc. |

----

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0215

_________________

PATRICIA TALFELSKI, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v.

MARK JOHNSON, TAMMI FISHER,

 Plaintiffs, Objectors,

 and Appellants,

 v.

LOGAN HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER,

 Defendant and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

Appellants, through counsel, have filed a motion to file a “consolidated” reply brief 

and to extend the filing deadline to November 1, 2023. Counsel states that in the interest 

of judicial economy Appellants should be permitted to file one “consolidated” reply brief 

rather than separate briefs addressing each of Appellees’ briefs. Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 

12(3), “Only one reply brief may be filed, regardless of the number of appellees’ briefs 

filed . . . .” 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellants motion for extension is GRANTED 

and Appellants shall have until November 1, 2023, to file their reply brief. 

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 8 2023

09/08/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0215
2’ 

. 

i *. 

+. 

& :‘.‘. ‘i. 

.- 
b 

Ponocable Jeeme James - p8ge $I . 

cuch iibtitwuent h-utid, an are retdived by 

tha TrO.Es~ Of the a6ht Or f-6, did1 

bd imastad in bode of the Unit-d StatO8, 

the state of Teue, or cautltioa or aitfos 

of this state, or in bosh laat104 by UQ 

agency ef the uaLtod Oktee uovortmont, 

tho pqaum~ of the prinolpml l f uld lntsroat un whloh ie gttaratxtoad by the UttltOU 

8totoo; 6 + 0.. 

Artio1a 2922-l* seiition %,-of Vernon*~ Civil 

n*tutes, doelrrer,: 

L 

aliLl “41 tho rwota of the Uetlremant 

oyrta mlmll bo arodlto4 reuonling to t&o 

)urpom6 SOr Vhiah thg 90 held t0 006 (if... 

ot sow8 (T) tam&@,' tbutoly, tab Ttmah6r-88vhg 

mud, the atate siombehhlp Aaamulatlon matar 

thoka~b6r6Mplnardff~66~6~,th6~6t'- 

86rvloo Anatdty R68ervO Tim& the xntor68t~~ . 

8ttud,th6F6TMtl6ttt~6t~ntad,ra(lth6- 

=Py-'3t"9~' : 

. . . ._ 

: 

w?li I8ter66t mtkt &er.h6i*?ty aroatdb to 

eaoilitate as ol-aaa~ (d Lpcam8t to tlio 

v- otmr futh* ~Ulin66n,'lnaw6t 

ad alvla0na.s aorlvea from the aepoelt* ama 

wo6tmmkt8 uttlmrlrad bj tM8 Act am11 -wJ. 

pal4 Let-0 the Iato+ot Vu&. Owe a&- year 

on Augttot alst. lntorost 6baub6 611666a: 

an8 tratlstorrd to the other fata, re8jmotively . rho state iam3 aC Tmrtm dial1 emtUt6l~tF666t6rtO @AS O-tot theint6Fert rtmervo aeuaaat of tho shwsnnent Rotlrorent Stub2 811 osaoa8 qrttlqp ritor ltttsro~tr b6u'imgtrudil.6a&tb6-p6fmOlhndh6v6b66m.. 

dalf atwitod eith 1tlt6r60t For tltr year fia 

ttio mas+r prariaed io ala-Icrt.9 
2.. 227 

&xbdi.~Ision (1) of Gection 7 of the Teacha’ notixW!a%t sy8terP ACta aS 8Eeaddl by the 47th Legh’lrtUro, 

.Bqgllar stsa1oa (lsll), General L*us* p. 018, rouxa 8s fol108mr 

*The State Lioud OS Sl’USt608 t&all be the 

trustees or the rawal tm6s aa herein at-sated 

by thto Aat, and *ball lwe fall power to lnvest md relmeot stwh rude subject to the folloui* iindtatione and rostrictionclt Au retire- 

%. 

ment fuuds, as are reaeived ..Py the Tmmoury Of 

the State of Texas from cond&utioru of teaaherm anb anployera as herain provided, may be investal only in bonds ot the tiulted States, tho 

sit&o or Toxa8, or countloa, or citieo, or 

salu~ol distriats of t&&s bkto, vh6min s&l 

L.. aount+os, or dtlos, or sebool 4isWats hsro 

mot dehultsd in pl’iaSlp61 6r ittfsreot 6~ betUs 

wkthltt a p6rUtl of tsq, <ie) pars, or In liotulo 

iuu6& by atq 8#mey 6? the Unlteb Stateo Gavet'amont, the payment of tho,.pruclp8l ad ittter~f 

66Whiahi8&66rsat6s6by thoUn%tsb8ktaa;.udl 

stl -ipfereJ8t-~ not60 or bon& OS the mTOt’O%Xty Of YW iSM6& tlad6F 8d bf riFtU6 6f.’ 

Ch8pfsr’ 43, Lot0 of tbo Wrtf’-thM tegfslatwe,. 

moata oallee Seeriam~ ptwldea thati r'rutt%~4mt : 

~boiui.di'wh8h~lbeMpfenhdto~ 

w. tho l.msoal*ti pBp6tlt'~ot tho amount* that 

~J.ueoooedoaO~y~ir’~~iatMsIpf.’ 

TO .ptod PO ~hd&tUt.iOtlS~ P'CbWQtl q th0 &O&818- 

but-0 may not ensat suoh &oueral #tdOtl, ua .e%tIoo the 

UlthQgty there. OonForrad 60 weat aa relJlT6ot t!tMh ftim66 

:Ot’6&tOd* by that, Aat, OIL0 Otubb’Sh is t&6 %ttt~te+k~ 

, is our ep+mion.yeur qqatlemdeu~~be.mauer 

:: 

_’
EXHIBIT 32.1


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 this quarterly report of Possis Medical, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Robert G. Dutcher, Chief
Executive Officer of Possis Medical, Inc., 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; and

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


May 28, 2005
                                            -----------------------
                                            Robert G. Dutcher
                                            Chairman, President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                       28
EXHIBIT 32.2


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 this quarterly report of Possis Medical, Inc. on Form 10Q for
the period ended October 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Jules L. Fisher, 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; and

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



Date: December 9, 2005  By:/s/ Jules L. Fisher
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           JULES L. FISHER
                           Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer


                                       27
#### Joe H. Batty *alias*Joe Harvey v. State.

No. 24,528.

December 7, 1949.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for theft of cattle, with a sentence of four years in the penitentiary.

• Appellant has filed no brief in the case and the record is. before us without bills of exception or exceptions to the court’s, charge. We are unable to determine upon what ground appellant seeks a reversal of his case.

Edgar Aikin, colored, lived near the town of English, in Red River County. He was the owner of twenty-seven head of cattle running at large and his wife owned four. They were red with, white faces. Edgar knew his own and testified that the two involved were his. On an April Sunday morning he drove the two cows involved in this prosecution to a church yard nearby, *55where he left them for the day. They had no brands but were marked with a “crop to the left and under-slope to the right.”

On the previous Sunday two men from Clarksville were visitors in the community and held a conference with appellant. The subject concerned cattle which the two men were desirous of securing through the independent efforts of appellant. They wanted some large cattle off of a certain ranch, because they were fat. Appellant protested that he could not conquer these wild cattle, but did think he could get some poor ones, which one of the men agreed to buy if brought to Clarksville.

Now on the same Sunday that Edgar Aikin carried his two cows to the church yard appellant and Buster Edwards came that way and took possession of them. This was at night and it was four o’clock in the morning when they reached the home of the prospective purchaser in Clarksville. Respecting the sleeping hours of the white folks of the vicinity, the two Negro boys waited with patience until the prospective purchaser awoke at 5:30 A. M. They could not agree on the price, however, and on the advice of the white man with whom they were dealing, took the cattle to Paris, out of the county, as a matter of security. They sold them for $135.00 to a dealer at a commission barn. On the same day they were resold to a Red River County man who took them back to his pasture, not too far away from their origin. What transpired leading to the discovery of the cattle is not revealed by the record and it is immaterial. They were identified and appellant loaned Aikin his truck to go after them. In a signed statement, voluntarily made, appellant admitted the theft, detailed the circumstances, and said “I knew it was wrong for us to steal these cows and I am sorry I got caught.” Further the witness saith not. His admission justified the jury’s verdict, but his apology is not ground for a reversal of the case.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,245,001
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  934,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,312,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,287,827
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,769,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,491,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,093,708
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,333
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,544,623
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,491,830
<SALES>                                      3,718,870
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,718,870
<CGS>                                        2,591,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,591,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               621,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                505,493
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            505,493
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   505,493
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30



</TABLE>
Ex10.1 3.28.14






April 30, 2014


Nanometrics Incorporated
1550 Buckeye Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035


	
		
	RE:
	Nanometrics Incorporated (“Borrower”)

	 
	Obligor Number 8718034090






Gentlemen:


Comerica Bank (the “Bank”) has approved the extension of the Revolving Maturity Date, as defined in that certain Loan and Security Agreement, dated February 14, 2007 (as such may be amended, restated, modified, supplemented or revised from time to time, the “Agreement”) from April 30, 2014 to May 31, 2014. Upon your execution of a counterpart of this letter, the Revolving Maturity Date shall be so amended.


The Agreement, as modified and amended hereby, shall be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with its respective terms and hereby is ratified and confirmed in all respects. Except as expressly set forth herein, the execution, delivery, and performance of this modification and amendment shall not operate as a waiver of, or as an amendment of, any right, power, or remedy of Bank under the Agreement or any other Loan Document (as defined in the Agreement), as in effect prior to the date hereof. Borrower ratifies and reaffirms the continuing effectiveness of all promissory notes, guaranties, security agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust, environmental agreements, and all other instruments, documents and agreements entered into in connection with the Agreement.


By execution of a counterpart of this letter, Borrower further represents and warrants that the representations and warranties contained in the Agreement are true and correct as of the date hereof, and that no default or event of default has occurred and is continuing under the Agreement or any other document, instrument or agreement entered into in connection therewith.


Sincerely,


Comerica Bank


	
		
	By:
	/s/ Robert Shutt

	Name:
	Robert Shutt

	Title:
	SVP






Acknowledged and accepted on April 30, 2014


Nanometrics Incorporated


	
		
	By:
	/s/ Ronald Kisling

	Name:
	Ronald Kisling

	Title:
	CFO
#### ALLEN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

May 15,1935.

MeGeachy & *Elliot, of*Milton, for plaintiff in error.

Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BUFORD, Justice.

The writ of error is to review a judgment of conviction of the offense of murder in the second degree under the indictment charging murder in the first degree. Plaintiff in error states two questions to be determined by this court, as follows:

> “First Question: That the testimony was insufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction. The court held ‘yes’ while it is contended to the contrary.

> “Second Question: That the defendant’s requested charge Number Two should have been given. The court held ‘no’ while it is contended to the contrary.” ■

There is, ample substantial evidence in the record, if believed by the jury, to warrant the verdict returned. It was the province of the jury to reconcile conflicting evidence -and to believe that which they deemed. worthy of belief and discard that which they did not believe worthy of belief. We must assume that the jury pursued that course in reaching the verdict.

The charge which the plaintiff in error insists should have been given, and the refusal of which it is contended constituted reversible' error, was purported to be a charge on the law of self-defense. The legal principle enunciated in the charge was fully given by the court in the general charge, and we think that the charge as given in the general charge was couched in more accurate terms than was that which was requested. The requested charge was so couched as to make it appear that the court was convinced by the evidence of the existence of some material facts and was objectionable for that reason also. See Blanton v. State, 52 Fla. 12, *41*So. 789-,

We find no reversible error disclosed by the record, and therefore the judgment should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

ELLIS, P. J., and TERRELL, J., concur.

WHITFIELD, O. J., and DAVIS, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

January 27, 2006

Mr. C. Robert Heath

Bickerstaff Heath Smiley Pollan

Kever & McDaniel, L.L.P.

816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700

Austin, TX 78701-2443

Ms.  Donna  G.  Davidson

Potts & Reilly, L.L.P.

401 West 15th Street, Suite 850

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. Patrick O. Keel

1603 Westover Road

Austin, TX 78703

Honorable John K. Dietz

250th District Court

P. O. Box 1748

Austin, TX 78767

RE:Case Number:  06-0042

Court of Appeals Number:  03-06-00023-CV

Trial Court Number:  D-1-GN-06-0119

Style:IN RE  THE HONORABLE CHARLES HOLCOMB

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion/s and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  (Justice Willett not sitting)

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0042Page 1**
Exhibit 32.1

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 this annual report on Form 10-K of VS Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended
December 27, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas A. Tolworthy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of VS Holdings, Inc.
|---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 19, 2009



/s/ Thomas A. TolworthyThomas A. TolworthyChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Penn-Pacific  Corp., on Form
10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2005 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),  the  undersigned,  Rose
Fischer,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Accounting  Officer  of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my  knowledge  and
belief:

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

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


Date: May 10, 2005



/s/ Rose Fischer
Rose Fischer
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation. 

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On July 24, 2008, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of permit applications received. A permit was issued on August 25, 2008 to:                           ( print page 51014)    

Ron Naveen, 

## Permit No. 2009-015 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-20096 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P