alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20

- 0609

_________________ ARIANE WITTMAN and JEREMY TAYLEN,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v. CITY OF BILLINGS,

Defendant and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ Counsel for Appellants Ariane Wittman and Jeremy Taylen have filed a motion for leave to grant Amicus Curiae Montana Trial Lawyers Association’s participation in the oral argument scheduled for September 10, 2021, in the captioned matter. A ppellants’ counsel will cede whatever time Amicus uses from their argument time. There is no opposition to the motion. The Court takes no position on this motion. The parties are limited to 40 minutes for the Appellant s and 30 minutes for the Appellee and may use that time at their discretion. The argument will be limited to two participants for each party.

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

August 10 2021

08/10/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0609
Exhibit 21.1

Fisher Communications, Inc.

Subsidiaries



|                                                  |  |                                
|------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|Subsidiary                                        |  | Jurisdiction in which Organized
|Fisher Broadcasting Company                       |  | Washington                     
|Fisher Mills Inc.                                 |  | Washington                     
|Fisher Properties Inc.                            |  | Washington                     
|Fisher Media Services Company                     |  | Washington                     
|Fisher Radio Regional Group Inc. /(1)/            |  | Washington                     
|Fisher Broadcasting  Seattle TV, L.L.C. /(1)/    |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Seattle Radio, L.L.C. /(1)/ |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Portland TV, L.L.C. /(1)/   |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Oregon TV, L.L.C. /(1)/     |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Washington TV, L.L.C. /(1)/ |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Idaho TV, L.L.C. /(1)/      |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  S.E. Idaho TV, L.L.C. /(1)/ |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Bellevue TV, L.L.C. /(1)/   |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  California TV, L.L.C. /(1)/ |  | Delaware                       



|(1) | Wholly owned by Fisher Broadcasting Company
|--- | -------------------------------------------
#### CAR AND GENERAL INSURANCE CORP., Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack GOLDSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant, and Myra Goldstein, an infant, by her Guardian ad Litem, Frances Goldstein, Defendants.

No. 317, Docket 26074.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued May 4, 1960.

Decided May 4, 1960.

Dominic J. Cornelia, New York City, for plaintiff-appellee.

Eugene L. Sugarman, New York City (Irwin L. Dickman and Sugarman, Kuttner & Fuss, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, MEDINA, Circuit Judge and JAMESON, District Judge.***

***

 Sitting by Designation,

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court the decision of Judge Metzner reported at D.C.S.D.N.Y.1959, 179 F.Supp. 888.
Exhibit 21.1

Fisher Communications, Inc.

Subsidiaries



|                                                          |  |                                
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|Subsidiary                                                |  | Jurisdiction in 
whichOrganized
|Fisher Broadcasting Company                               |  | Washington                     
|Fisher Mills Inc.                                         |  | Washington                     
|Fisher Properties Inc.                                    |  | Washington                     
|Fisher Media Services Company                             |  | Washington                     
|Fisher Radio Regional Group Inc.                          |  | Washington                     
|Fisher Broadcasting  Seattle TV, L.L.C.                  |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Seattle Radio, L.L.C.               |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Portland TV, L.L.C.                 |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Oregon TV, L.L.C.                   |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Washington TV, L.L.C.               |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Idaho TV, L.L.C.                    |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  S.E. Idaho TV, L.L.C.               |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  Bellevue TV, L.L.C.                 |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Broadcasting  California TV, L.L.C.               |  | Delaware                       
|Fisher Interactive Network, L.L.C.                        |  | Delaware                       
|South West Oregon Television Broadcasting Corporation (1) |  | Delaware                       



|(1) | 50% owned entity.
|--- | -----------------
#### John James ZUKOWSKI, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D10-4424.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 4, 2011.

John J. Zukowski, Chattahoochee, pro se.

Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the *394notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence in Case No. 2008-CF-014144-A/O, in the Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

TORPY, EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1450 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1450

   To create 4 new permanent judgeships for the eastern district of 
                              California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2007

 Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California (for himself and Mr. McCarthy of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To create 4 new permanent judgeships for the eastern district of 
                              California.

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

SECTION 1. NEW JUDGESHIPS FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

    (a) New Appointments.--The President shall appoint, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, 4 additional district judges for the 
eastern district of California.
    (b) Table.--In order that the table contained in section 133(a) of 
title 28, United States Code, reflects the total number of permanent 
district judgeships authorized by virtue of subsection (a) of this 
section, such table is amended by striking the item relating to 
California and inserting the following:

``California                                                           
    Northern...................................................     14 
    Eastern....................................................     10 
    Central....................................................     27 
    Southern...................................................   13''.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section, 
including such sums as may be necessary to provide appropriate space 
and facilities for the judicial positions created by this section.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      32**


**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


**(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)**





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of China Bionanometer Industries Corporation (F/K/A Easy
      Groups Limited), a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify,
      to
      such officer's knowledge, that:





The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 31, 2005 (the
      "Form 10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
      in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      China Bionanometer Industries Corporation and will be retained by China
      Bionanometer Industries Corporation (formerly “Easy Groups Limited”) and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




Dated:
                November 13, 2007/s/
                Wang Wen’gengWang
                Wen’gengChief
                Executive Officer/s/
                Xiang QinXiang
                QinChief
                Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 58414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23914]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0268]


Dental Products Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; 
Amendment of Notice

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment 
to the notice of meeting of the Dental Products Panel of the Medical 
Devices Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the Federal 
Register of June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33315). The amendment is being made to 
reflect a change in the Agenda portion of the document. There are no 
other changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Olga I. Claudio, Food and Drug 
Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1553, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-7608, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 
(301-443-0572 in the Washington DC area), code 3014512518. Please call 
the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of June 11, 2010, 
FDA announced that a meeting of the Dental Products Panel of the 
Medical Devices Advisory Committee would be held on December 14 and 15, 
2010. On page 33316, in the first column, in the Agenda portion of the 
document, in the second full paragraph, in the second sentence, the 
phrase ``(docket numbers FDA-2008-N-0163 and FDA-2009-P-0357)'' is 
changed to read as follows:
    ``(docket numbers FDA-2008-N-0163, FDA-2009-P-0357, and FDA-2010-P-
0056-0001)''
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.

    Dated: September 21, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-23914 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.6

[LOGO OF MCLEODUSA(R) APPEARS HERE]

                                                                   PRESS RELEASE

                    [LETTERHEAD OF MCLEODUSA APPEARS HERE]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

                   McLeodUSA Acquires NewCom Technologies &
                       NewCom OSP Services of Des Moines

     Cedar Rapids, Iowa, May 1, 1998 - McLeodUSA Incorporated (Nasdaq/NMS:MCLD) 
of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has acquired NewCom Technologies and NewCom OSP Services 
of West Des Moines, Iowa. NewCom Technologies and NewCom OSP Services have been 
combined into a single unit called NewCom Companies, Inc. under its current 
management team, operating as a separate business unit of McLeodUSA. Terms of 
the agreement were not disclosed.

     NewCom provides network engineering, design and mapping services to cable 
television and telecommunications clients across the nation. NewCom has been a 
primary vendor to McLeodUSA for several years, providing design and engineering 
services for the construction of much of the company's 5,000 route miles of 
fiber optics network. NewCom will continue to provide engineering and design 
services to McLeodUSA as it expands its network between cities, and as it 
targets network construction within cities. NewCom will also continue to serve 
other clients.


                                                                               1



<PAGE>
 


    Steve Gray, President and Chief Operating Officer of McLeodUSA, stated "Our
several year history with NewCom has been instrumental in our ability to
construct our telecommunications network at a rapid pace. In addition, the
management team has a wealth of experience in related technologies, particularly
cable television. In fact, the principals of NewCom played prominent roles with
Heritage Communications, the firm that designed and built the original Des
Moines cable television system."

    McLeodUSA is a provider of integrated telecommunications services to
businesses and residential customers. The Company's telecommunications customers
are located in ten Midwestern and Rocky Mountain States. The combined firm is a
14-state facilities-oriented telecommunications provider with 7 switches, and
more than 314,000 local lines, 4,700 employees, and 5,100 route miles of fiber
optics network. In the next 12 months, the Company's publishing subsidiaries
will distribute nearly 15 million copies of competitive directories in 21
states, reaching a population of 27 million.

                                     # # #



                                                                               2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          11,471
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,844
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    553,737
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         421,541
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           416,534
<LOANS>                                        826,462
<ALLOWANCE>                                     14,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,888,847
<DEPOSITS>                                     807,477
<SHORT-TERM>                                   584,205
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             15,505
<LONG-TERM>                                    343,593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,888,847
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 34,776
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               33,080
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   276
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                68,132
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,345
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,797
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           26,335
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,010
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  14
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 27,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,137
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        7345
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7345
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.98
<LOANS-NON>                                     10,622
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   6007
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,124
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      199
<RECOVERIES>                                        46
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                14981
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             14981
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 10QSB for
3rd Qtr 2000 and is qualified in it's 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>                                                54,295
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          3,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                           58,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     116,325
<PP&E>                                                 8,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (39,560)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       124,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  4,426
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                               2,470
<OTHER-SE>                                           120,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         124,899
<SALES>                                                2,199
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       2,199
<CGS>                                                    258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      55,122
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      (2,247)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (50,516)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (50,516)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (.01)



</TABLE>
#### SKYLINE MANAGEMENT, INC. v. MARION A. ALLEN, INC. OF GEORGIA d/b/a The Allen Group, Marion A. Allen, Inc. of Louisiana and Marion A. Allen.

No. 2011-C-0171.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Allen, Marion A.; Marion A. Allen, Inc. of Georgia, et al.; The Allen Group;— *668Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 99-14856; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1294.

Denied.
Exhibit 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




American Champion Entertainment, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Numbers
333-60511, 333-67879, 333-72253, 333-82963, 333-90459 and 333-30626 on Forms
S-3 and Registration Statement Numbers 333-60107, 333-80269, 333-95435 and
333-96419 (American Champion Entertainment, Inc. 1997 Stock Plan and 1997
Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan of American Champion Entertainment,
Inc.) on Forms S-8 of our report dated January 27, 2000 appearing in and
incorporated by reference in this 10-KSB of American Champion Entertainment,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.


/s/ Moss Adams LLP
    Moss Adams LLP

San Francisco, California
March 27, 2000
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Tierre R. SMITH.

No. 2011-KK-0683.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 6, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 501-601; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0303.

Stay denied; writ denied.
#### H. E. Laird v. Frieberg, Klien & Co.

(No. 1572.)

March 1, 1884.

Appeal from Galveson County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 110. *Appeal bond injustice’s court; time of filing.*If an appeal bond in justice’s court be filed within ten days, after an order overruling a motion for new trial in the case, it is filed within the time required by law. *[Ante,*§ 49.]

§ 111. *Same; description of judgment in.*The appeal bond described the judgment by stating the style and number of the case, and the date of the judgment, correctly. In stating the amount of the judgment there was a discrepancy of one cent. The judgment was for $(>1.91, while the bond described it as a judgment for $61.90. *Held,*that this discrepancy did not vitiate the bond. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 1236.]

§ 112. *Same; conditions of.*The bond was conditioned that appellant would prosecute his appeal “'with effect ” instead of “to effect.” *Held,*this did not vitiate the bond. [Franklin v. Tiernan, 56 Tex. 618.] The county court held the appeal bond insufficient and dismissed the appeal. *Held,*error.

Eeversed and remanded.