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

DA 22-0304

________________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF 

F.O.B.,

Youth in need of Care. 

_____________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing therefore, Appellant is granted an extension of time 

until November 17, 2022 to prepare, serve, and file her response to the Motion 

to Withdraw and Anders Brief. No additional extensions will be granted for 

her response. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 12 2022

10/12/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0304
#### Hilda BROADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Hardees of Colonial & 21st Street, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-1645.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 15, 2000.

Decided Jan. 12, 2001.

Stanley E. Sacks, Sacks *&*Sacks, Norfolk, VA, for appellant. C. Kailani Mem-mer, Gentry, Locke, Rakes *&*Moore, Roanoke, VA, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

*217PER CURIAM.

Hilda Broady appeals the magistrate judge’s order * granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc., in this diversity action, in which Broady alleged that Boddie-Noell was negligent. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. *Broady v. Boddie-Noell Enters., Inc.,*No. CA-99-1816-2 (E.D.Va. May 12, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 The case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising jurisdiction upon consent of the parties, in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp.2000).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,735,216
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  623,152
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,184,192
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,818,354
<PP&E>                                       4,569,071
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,886,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,553,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,768,692
<BONDS>                                         74,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,921,038
<COMMON>                                    45,159,258
<OTHER-SE>                                (40,920,483)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,553,681
<SALES>                                        916,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               916,733
<CGS>                                        1,628,047
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,628,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,478,947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,075,372)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,075,372)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,075,372)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

DEVON RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 430 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,187,000
<SECURITIES>                                18,527,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,416,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   129,000
<INVENTORY>                                    212,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,317,000
<PP&E>                                       2,407,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,268,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,770,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,365,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,134,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,770,000
<SALES>                                      3,270,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,436,000
<CGS>                                        1,884,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,457,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,453,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   581,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            979,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                474,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   872,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18



</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES MCDEVITT, JR.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION

OCT 25 2016

OSM

U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
#### WALTER ALTANA, RESPONDENT, v. JOHN McCABE, APPELLANT.

Argued May 2, 1944

Decided July 5, 1944.

*13Before Justices Paekek, FLehbk and Colie.

For the appellant, *Arthur J. O’Dea.*

For the respondent, *John A. Laird.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Paekeb, J.

The critical question on this appeal is whether an amendment to the state of demand at the opening of the trial was untimely and harmful to the defendant-appellant. As originally drawn, the state of demand set up a case of false imprisonment at the instance of defendant, namety, arrest without warrant, detention in a police station, finger printing, and final release without trial. The original allegation in the state of demand was that defendant did “request and order a police officer * * * to arrest the plaintiff.” But when the case was moved for trial, without any previous notice, plaintiff moved to amend the state of demand to read that defendant “did * * * with malice request and order,” &e. This amendment is the gravamen of the appeal, and that it was material seems to be indicated by the fact that the damages awarded by the jury were $500, the maximum jurisdictional amount, after a charge by the judge specifically dealing with malice as an element of damages. Defendant’s attorney objected to the amendment, on the ground that he had not had notice of any such claim and had not prepared for it, but was overruled, with the result just stated.

We consider that it was erroneous to allow the amendment, the effect of which was to add to the plaintiff’s claim the essential element of malicious prosecution. The gist of false imprisonment is mere unlawful detention without more, and conceivably with meritorious intent: and malice is not an element of the cause of action. 25 *O. J.*545. The old precedents for the respective causes of action are quite distinct, 2 *Chit. PI.**600; *Id.**857. There may, of course, be incidents in false imprisonment justifying punitive damages, such as excessive force in the arrest, &c.; but the gist of false imprisonment, even with the best motives, is the unlaw*14fulness of the arrest, however gentle or *bona fide*it may have been. Malice is not an essential element, 11 *R. G. L.*794; but the trial court in charging the jury dealt with the case as one for malicious prosecution, and instructed them, among other things, that it must appear “that the charge was made without reasonable cause,” and “that the defendant in making it was actuated by malice.”

The error in introducing the element of express malice for the first time at the trial requires a reversal of the judgment, and a remand for a new trial. Such will be the order.
584 A.2d 199

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM NELSON.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification granted and remanded to the Appellate Division in light of *State v. Muniz,*122 *N.J.*334, 585 A.2d 350 (1990).
MEMORANDUM


TO:       Roger P. Weise

FROM:     Carol J. Thouin, Corporate Secretary

DATE:     May 25, 1999

RE:       Notice of Extension of Employment Contract

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

The Board of Directors (the 'Board') of Home Federal Savings Bank
has reviewed your formal performance evaluation performed by
selected members of the Board. In connection therewith and
pursuant to Section 1 of your contract, on May 25, 1999, the
Board determined to extend your employment contract until the May
Board Meeting, 2002.

                              HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK

                         By:  /s/ M.F. Schumann
                              ---------------------------
                              M.F. Schumann
                              Director

                     EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

     I hereby acknowledge receipt of this notice of extension of
the above-referenced agreement and accept the extension of the
term of such agreement.

                              EMPLOYEE

Dated:   May 25, 1999              By: /s/ Roger P. Weise
      ---------------------       ------------------------
                                   Roger P. Weise
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      17,886,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,231,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (649,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    590,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,847,000
<PP&E>                                      87,375,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              43,514,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             117,473,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,019,000
<BONDS>                                     19,868,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,263,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               117,473,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            69,634,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               52,547,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,365,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,960,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,397,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,317,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
        

</TABLE>
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-7 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and
 
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Xerox Education Services, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.
 
  
  
 
 
 /s/ SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES VITO MONTEMARANO.

October 13, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      1,059,549  
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 556,182 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   49,610
<INVENTORY>                                   301,887 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,873,366
<PP&E>                                      3,072,537
<DEPRECIATION>                                302,754 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              4,961,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         995,816
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      100,396
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,983,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                4,961,030
<SALES>                                       774,906      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              774,906      
<CGS>                                       1,436,944        
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,436,944        
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             46,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,009,271)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,009,271)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,009,271)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission.

# DATE AND TIME:

Thursday, October 7, 2010, at 10 a.m.

# PLACE:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

# STATUS:

this meeting will be open to the public.

# ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-19: Google by its counsel, Marc E. Elias, Esq. and Jonathan S. Berkon, Esq. of Perkins Coie LLP.

Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-21: ReCellular Inc. by its counsel, Michael B. Trister, Esq. and Allen H. Mattison, Esq. of Lichtman, Trister & Ross, PLLC.

Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-25: RG Entertainment Ltd. by its counsel, Lee E. Goodman, Esq. of LeClairRyan.

Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications by Corporations and Labor Organizations.

Management and Administrative Matters.

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Lisa Chapman, Recording Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shawn Woodhead Werth,

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010-25365 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
585 A.2d 375

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BENI McDONALD.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
##### 



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 the Quarterly Report of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
James A. White, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. By /s/ James A. White  Name: James A. White
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 9, 2004
Not for P ubl ication in West's Fe deral Report er Citation Limit ed P ursuan t to 1st C ir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f App eal s

For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-1788 BASHKIM ALIMADHI, Petitioner,

v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Torruella and Lipez, Circuit Judges.

Emmanuel N. Papanickolas on brief for petitioner. William J. Schneider, Assistant United States Attorney, and Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, on brief for respondent.

April 14, 2006-2- Per Curiam. Bashkim Alimadhi is an Albanian national who entered the United States on a fraudulent passport and visa in March 2001. In removal proceedings begun a year later, Alimadhi conceded removability but sought asylum and withholding of removal because of persecution based on his political opinions. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (2006). The immigration judge ("IJ") held a hearing and denied relief in an order summarily affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alimadhi was born in 1968 in Albania during the rule of Enver Hoxha, a Communist dictator. The regime was overthrown in 1991 and the Democratic Party of Albania ruled the country until 1997. Then, after another period of upheaval, the Socialist Party of Albania rose to power and has ruled ever since. Alimadhi is affiliated with an opposition party, the National Front Party ("PBK"), which has a few legislative seats.

To support his claim of past and f u t ure persecution, Alimadhi described four incidents of alleged persecution at the hearing in front of the IJ. Two of the incidents were not

m e n t ioned when Alimadhi was initially interviewed by an asylum officer. A third incident--an alleged beating of Alim a d h i by police in July 1997--occurred d u r ing a period when Alimadhi had told the asylum officer he was in Greece. Two of the alleged incidents were not mentioned in Alimadhi's written ( a n d sworn) asylum application.-3- The IJ found Alimadhi not to be credible as to his description of alleged past persecution--a reasonable conclusion to which we defer. Bojorques-Villanueva v. INS, 194 F.3d 14, 16 (1st Cir. 1999). Past incidents aside, Alimadhi's main basis for his alleged fear of future persecution is his claim that the present ruling Socialist Par t y of Albania will persecute him because he belongs to an oppositio n p arty. The inference is at odds with State Department reports as to political conditions i n Albania today; other of Alimadhi's family members, who belong to his own party, reside peacefully in Albania.

The IJ's conclusion that Alimadhi has not established a reasonable fear of future persecution is so clearly s u p p orted by substanti a l evidence as to make detailed discussion unnecessary. With that conclusion, Alimadhi's further claim for withholding of removal also fails. Aguilar-Solis v. INS, 168 F.3d 565, 569 n. 3 (1st Cir. 1999). So, too, does Alimadhi's additional claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c).

The petition for review is denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Frank WALGAMOTTE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0947.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re Walgamotte, Frank; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedi*1012al Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 29285.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. The district attorney is ordered to provide relator with an estimate of the costs of reproducing public records relator has requested and to which relator is entitled. La. Const, art. XII, Section 3; R.S. 44:31; R.S. 44:31.1; *State ex rel. Barbee v. State,*10-0275 (La.2/4/11), 57 So.3d 318; *State ex rel. Leonard v. State,*96-1889 (La.6/13/97), 695 So.2d 1325; *State ex rel. Level v. State,*99-2266 (La.12/17/99), 751 So.2d 869; *Range v. Moreau,*96-1607 (La.9/3/96), 678 So.2d 537. In all other respects, the application is denied.