alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 14268 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ST- OF MONTANA 

1978 

MARION C. MXLUFG and 

LOIS K. MSLURG, husbard and wife, 

Plaintiffs and Appellants, 

FZATHEAD COUNTY ~ISSIONERS, 

and CLIFFORD VINJE, Ibad Supervisor, 

Defendants and Respondents. 

Appeal frm: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, 

Homrable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellants: 

M. Keith WClurg argued, Big Fork, Montana 

For Respondents: 

Patrick Springer, County Attorney, Kalispell, mntana 

Leonard A. Vadala argued, Deputy County Attorney, Kalispell, 

Wntana 

Sulmnitted: October 20, 1978 

-- .. -i 

Filed: iJC! 
Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the District Court, 

Flathead County, setting aside a default entered in their favor 

by the clerk of said court. 

Plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action seeking 

permission to barricade a road running through a corner of a 

parcel of land owned by them. They alleged that the road was an 

inconvenience to them in that automobiles often became stuck on 

a steep incline in the winter and put them to time and expense 

extricating motorists with their tractor. Since there was another 

route existing by which cars could reach the same destinations, 

plaintiffs wanted to erect signs indicating that the road on 

their land was a deadend private drive. 

The Flathead County Commissioners, named as defendants 

in the action, failed to file a responsive pleading within the 

time limits provided by the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiffs had the clerk of court enter defendants' default pursuant to Rule 55(a), M.R.Civ.P. Before default judgment had 

been entered, however, the county commissioners filed a motion 

to set aside their default. The District Court granted this 

motion. Plaintiffs appeal. 

The right of appeal exists only by statute or rule. Payne 

v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1963), 142 Mont. 

406, 385 P.2d 100. There is no statute or rule authorizing appeal 

from an order setting aside entry of default before judgment is 

taken. 

Rule l(a), M.R.App.Civ.P. provides that an appeal may be 

taken from a final judgment entered in an action commenced in a 

District Court. As a general rule, an order setting aside an 

entry of default where judgment has not been entered is not such 

a final order and is, therefore, not appealable. Annot. 8 ALR3d 
1272, 1278; 4 Am Jur 2d Appeal and Error 5127. Entry of default 

is merely "an interlocutory act looking toward the subsequent 

entry of a final judgment by default and is more in the nature 

of a formal matter." Whaley v. Rhodes (1970), 10 N.C.App. 109, 

177 S.E.2d 735, 736, citing 6 Moore's Federal Practice 1155.10[1], 

at 1827 (2d ed. 1966), construing Rule 55(a), F.R.Civ.P., which 

is identical to the corresponding Montana rule. We have expressly held that an order setting aside a default is not appealable 

where final judgment has not been entered. Blevins v. Kramer 

(19781, Mont . I- P.2d 35 St.Rep. , (decided 

December 5, 1978. 

Appeal dismissed. 

Chief Justice 

We concur:
#### Swift *v.*Falconer and Jewett.

In an assistant justice’s court, the plaintiff must prove his demand although the defendant interposes no defence. The default does not admit the plaintiff’s claim.

March 10th;

March 7th, 1849.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment in one of the assistant justices courts ; where the plaintiff recovered in an action *641upon a previous judgment. The amount of the latter was set forth in the complaint below. The defendants pleaded three pleas, which the justice on a subsequent day, struck out as frivolous on the plaintiff’s motion, and thereupon without any testimony or proof being given or offered, rendered a judgment for the amount of the plaintiff’s claim.

*E. C.*Gray, for the appellants.

*S. Jones, Jr.,*for the respondent.

By the Court. Oakley, Ch. J.

It is claimed in support of this judgment, that under the code of procedure, the complaint is admitted, in a justice’s court, if the defendant suffer a default or otherwise fail to make a defence to the action; and that the plaintiff is thereupon entitled to a judgment for his demand set forth in his complaint, without any evidence or proof whatever. In short, that in this respect justice’s courts are put upon a footing with courts of record.

We think this is not the law. No copy of the complaint is served with the summons, and it would not be safe to permit the practice insisted upon. If, as we are told, such a practice has prevailed to some extent in this city, we can only say, it is time that it ceased. We think the code has wrought no change in this respect.

Judgment reversed.
News United States Air Force
 Air Force realigns Grand Forks AFB under ACCPublished June 13, 2017
                        
                        
                        Air Combat Command Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Air Mobility Command and Air Combat Command commanders have agreed to the realignment of the 319th Air Base Wing, Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota to ACC effective June 13, 2017.  
The move will align Grand Forks AFB, which hosts active duty RQ-4 Global Hawk operations, under the major command that organizes, trains and equips Airmen to perform remotely piloted aircraft missions.
“This realignment places a base that is focused on the RPA mission under the command with responsibility for it,” said Gen. Mike Holmes the ACC commander. “I have no doubt that by streamlining the organization, we can find new and better ways to support and carry out this important mission.”
Approximately 1,400 people will transfer from AMC’s 319th ABW to ACC under the realignment, but will continue to support RQ-4 operations by collocated squadrons belonging to the 69th Reconnaissance Group of the 9th Reconnaissance Wing, Beale AFB, California.
"I am proud of the Airmen of Grand Forks AFB for their tireless dedication to mission, the Air Force and Air Mobility Command," said Gen. Carlton D. Everhart II, the AMC commander. "The realignment will be relatively transparent to Airmen as they transition to Air Combat Command and continue to make critical contributions to national defense."Washington 



Air Combat Command 



ACC 



Air Mobility Command 



AMC 



realignment 



319th Air Base Wing 



319th ABW 



Grand Forks AFB 



RQ-4 



Global Hawk 



Airmen 



Remotely Piloted Aircraft 



RPA 



69th Reconnaissance Group 



69th RG 



9th Reconnaissance Wing 



Beale AFB
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICKY SHIVERS.

February 26, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 4.3


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated October 7, 2014, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-198173) of Smart Trust,
Strategic Growth & Income Trust, Series 6.


 


	/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
	Grant Thornton LLP



Chicago, Illinois


October 7, 2014
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 66 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings

  No committee meetings were held.
```
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not

precedent except under the limited circumstances set

forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 98-30959

Summary Calendar

___________________________

LATRISHA GEORGETTE GUNN, ET ALS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Shreveport

(97-CV-2450)

 ___________________________________________________

March 15, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER,Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

The judgment of the district court is affirmed, essentially

for reasons stated by the district court in its July 17, 1998

memorandum ruling.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information from Trump's Castle
Associates, L.P.  This data has been extracted from the Consolidated
Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three
month period ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000911534
<NAME> TRUMP'S CASTLE ASSOCIATES, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          25,967
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,107<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,943
<PP&E>                                         528,419
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 540,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,876
<BONDS>                                        369,465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   540,214
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,486
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,250<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,937)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Asset values represent net amounts.
<F2>Represents depreciation and amortization expenses.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
(Committees not listed did not meet)
OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal 
Service, General Government held hearings on certain issues relating to 
the Oklahoma City bombing incident, focusing on Federal building safety 
measures, receiving testimony from Ronald K. Noble, Under Secretary for 
Enforcement, Charles Thompson, Associate Director for Law Enforcement, 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Eljay Bowron, Director, 
United States Secret Service, all of the Department of the Treasury; 
and Roger W. Johnson, Administrator, General Services Administration.
  Subcommittee recessed subject to call.
```
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 19, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 19, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0061. DEKALB COUNTY v. PAMELA STANLEY.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 18A68490
Consent of Independent Auditor
 
 We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 of Pretium Resources Inc. of our report dated March 4, 2014, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report.
   We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-10 (file No. 333-179726) of Pretium Resources Inc.of our report dated March 4, 2014referred to above.
   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
 Chartered Accountants
 Vancouver, British Columbia
 
 March 4, 2014
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**ALTERA CORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the periodic report of Altera Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30, 2007, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John P. Daane, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United StatesCode, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

Date: May 8, 2007 

 

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

 

31
#### Whitney *v.*Bayard.

On an appeal from a justice’s court, the judgment will be reversed by default, if the respondent do not appear to argue the appeal.

Jany. 27, 1849.

In this case, the respondent did not appear, on the appeal being moved, and the question was raised, whether under the code of procedure, this court would reverse the judgment below by default, or must look into the case on an argument *ex parte.*

The Court

said the appeal is a mere substitute for the for*635mer certiorari, to bring up the judgment for review. On the certiorari, error was assigned in form, and judgment was always reversed by default, if the defendant in error did not appear. In the affidavit for the appeal, there is a regular assignment of errors required by the statute. The legal effect of the proceeding is the same as before. The nature of the case is not changed, and the practice must be the same.

Judgment reversed by default.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 170 (Thursday, September 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21941]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Office of the Secretary: Notice of Applications for Certificates 
of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits 
Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q)

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) during the week ending August 21, 2010. The 
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2005-22228.
    Date Filed: August 17, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 7, 2010.
    Description: Application of Atlas Air, Inc. requesting renewal of 
its certificate of public convenience and necessity for blanket route 
integration, awarded by Order 2006-1-1.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-21941 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 244 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 244

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to modify the Pilot Project 
       offices of the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project.

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

SECTION 1. PILOT PROJECT OFFICES OF FEDERAL PERMIT STREAMLINING PILOT 
              PROJECT.

    Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15924) is 
amended by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
    ``(d) Pilot Project Offices.--The following Bureau of Land 
Management Offices shall serve as the Pilot Project offices:
            ``(1) Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming.
            ``(2) Buffalo Field Office, Wyoming.
            ``(3) Montana/Dakotas State Office, Montana.
            ``(4) Farmington Field Office, New Mexico.
            ``(5) Carlsbad Field Office, New Mexico.
            ``(6) Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs Field Office, 
        Colorado.
            ``(7) Vernal Field Office, Utah.''.

            Passed the Senate June 19, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 244

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to modify the Pilot Project 
       offices of the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2447 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2447

     To amend title 31, United States Code, to clarify the use of 
                    credentials by enrolled agents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 2014

  Mr. Portman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title 31, United States Code, to clarify the use of 
                    credentials by enrolled agents.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ENROLLED AGENT CREDENTIALS.

    Section 330 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
        subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively, and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(b) Any enrolled agents properly licensed to practice as required 
under rules promulgated under subsection (a) shall be allowed to use 
the credentials or designation of `enrolled agent', `EA', or `E.A.'.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2218 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the eligibility 

of certain territories and regions for designation for participation in 

the visa waiver program and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 8, 2014 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. LEE, Mr. KIRK, and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

for the eligibility of certain territories and regions for 

designation for participation in the visa waiver program 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Subnational Visa 

5 Waiver Program Act of 2014’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2218 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN TERRITORIES AND RE2 GIONS FOR DESIGNATION FOR PARTICIPA3 TION IN VISA WAIVER PROGRAM. 

4 Section 217(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 

5 Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(12) ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN TERRITORIES

8 AND REGIONS FOR DESIGNATION AS PROGRAM

9 COUNTRIES.—A territory or region of a country— 

10 ‘‘(A) shall be eligible for designation as a 

11 program country for purposes of this subsection 

12 if such territory or region is accorded treatment 

13 under a particular law of the United States, or 

14 any provision thereof, different from that ac15 corded to the country of which it is a part; and 

16 ‘‘(B) may be designated as a program 

17 country for purposes of this subsection if such 

18 territory or region meets requirements applica19 ble for such designation in this subsection.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILFORD GANTT.

February 26, 1985.

Petition for certification granted. (See 195 *N.J.Super.*114).