alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TKP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0218

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SHANE THOMAS PELLETIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for an extension of time, and 

good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time

to and including March 30, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file the 

State’s response.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 12 2020

03/12/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0218
Summary of selected index and target performance levels



 Exhibit 10(d) 
  
 Summary Of Selected Index And Target Performance Levels For 
 Fiscal Years 2006, 2005 and 2004 Grants To Certain Executive Officers Under The 
 1994 Shareholder Value Incentive Plan, As Amended 
  
 Pursuant to Alberto-Culver Company’s (the “Company”) Shareholder Value Incentive Plan (the “SVIP”), the Compensation and Leadership Development
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “CLD Committee”) (formerly the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company) has selected the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, among the six available
indices set forth in the SVIP, to rank the total shareholder return of the Company’s common stock for each of the following three-year performance periods: 
  

	 	•	 	Period beginning on October 1, 2005 and ending on September 30, 2008 (2006 Grants); 

  

	 	•	 	Period beginning on October 1, 2004 and ending on September 30, 2007 (2005 Grants); and 

  

	 	•	 	Period beginning on October 1, 2003 and ending on September 30, 2006 (2004 Grants). 

  
 For the 2006, 2005 and 2004 Grants, performance units were granted to Carol L. Bernick, Chairman and a Director; Howard B. Bernick,
President and Chief Executive Officer and a Director; William J. Cernugel, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Michael H. Renzulli, Chairman of Sally Beauty Company; and V. James Marino, President of Alberto-Culver Consumer Products
Worldwide. For each of the three-year performance periods, each performance unit granted has a payout value of $250 if the threshold performance level is attained, $1,000 if the target performance level is attained and $2,000 if the maximum
performance level is attained. For each of the three-year performance periods, the threshold, target and maximum performance levels are attained when the total shareholder return on the Company’s common stock meets or exceeds the total
shareholder return of 40%, 60% and 80%, respectively, of the companies comprising the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.
USGv6 Test Selection Tables 

IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)

I2-Interoperability: SLAAC-R1v1.4 

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267B Revision 1 USGv6 Profile – November 2020. 

Test Specification Id: 

• [Core-Interoperability] IPv6 Ready Core Protocols Interoperability Test Specification, [editor: IPv6 Ready 

Logo ]. 

Interoperability Partner Requirements:

• Any host or router claiming compliance with the USGv6 profile MUST demonstrate evidence of 

interoperability with three or more independent implementations of IPv6. The three implementations must 

include at least one Host and at least one Router.

• Target nodes must not change once testing has begun.

Core-Interoperability

If your Device Under Test (DUT) Type is Host:

• DUT = TAR-Host1 for all tests.

• TAR-Host2 = Independent Implementation Device B

• TAR-Router1 = Independent Implementation Device C

• Third Interoperability Partner is satisfied by executing the test specification again using the following:

• TAR-Router1 = Independent Implementation Device D

If your Device Under Test (DUT) Type is Router:

• DUT = TAR-Router1 for all tests.

• TAR-Host1 = Independent Implementation Device B

• TAR-Router2 = Independent Implementation Device C

• Third Interoperability Partner is satisfied by executing the test specification again using the following:

o TAR-Host1 = Independent Implementation Device D

SLAAC Applicable Test Check List

Reference Test Specification Id Test Number Device 

Type

RFC 4862 Core-Interoperability IP6Interop.1.2 Address Autoconfiguration and Duplicate 

Address Detection (A)(B)(C)(D) Host 

RFC 4862 Core-Interoperability IP6Interop.1.2 Address Autoconfiguration and Duplicate 

Address Detection (C)(D)(E)(F) Router

RFC 4862 Core-Interoperability IP6Interop.1.3 Processing Router Advertisements - Prefix 

Discovery (A)(B)(C) Host/Router

RFC 8106 Core-Interoperability IP6Interop.1.9 Processing Router Advertisements – DNS 

(A)(B)(C)(D) Host/Router
References: 

• [RFC 4862] Thomson, S., T. Narten, T. Jinmei, IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration, RFC 4862,

September 2007. 

• [RFC 8106] - J.Jeong, S. Park, L.Beloeil, and S.Mandadapalli, IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for 

DNS Configuration, RFC 8106, March 2017.

The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test specifications that identifies tests 

applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74153-74154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29271]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P. License No. 05/05-0318]

Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business 
Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P., 55 
West Monroe Street, Suite 3650 Chicago, IL 60603, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought 
an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107). Midwest 
Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P., proposes purchasing subordinated debt and 
equity financings provided to Currie

[[Page 74154]]

Medical Specialties, Inc. of 8758 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 
91730, Denison Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of One Power Hill Road, Lincoln, 
RI 02865, Packaging Concepts & Design, LLC of 1307 I Allen Drive, Troy, 
Mi 48083, Uncle Milton Industries, Inc. of 29209 Canwood Street, Suite 
120, Agoura Hills, CA 91301, and Vapor Power International, LLC of 551 
South County Line Road, Franklin Park, IL 60131. The financings Midwest 
Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P. seeks to purchase are held by Midwest 
Mezzanine Fund V, L.P.
    These financings are brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(d) 
of the Regulations because Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P. and 
Midwest Mezzanine Fund V, L.P. Partners II SBIC, L.P. are Associates. 
Therefore this transaction requires prior SBA exemption.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment and 
Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20416.

Javier E. Saade,
Associate Administrator for Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2014-29271 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT  23.1



                        Consent of Independent Auditors


  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
  (Form S-3 No. 333-06007, Form S-8 No. 333-08323, Form S-3 No. 33-53252, Form 
  S-3 No. 33-34303, Form S-3 No. 33-35301, Form S-3 No. 33-41916, Form S-3 No.
  33-82618, Form S-3 No. 33-63841, Form S-8 No. 33-34304, Form S-8 No. 33-60969
  and Form S-8 No. 33-63537) of National Media Corporation and in the related
  Prospectuses of our report dated July 14, 1997, with respect to the
  consolidated financial statements and schedule of National Media Corporation
  included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 1997.

                                      Ernst & Young LLP


  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  July 14, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29316]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, December 17, 2014, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

PLACE: CPSC's National Product Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 
Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public

Matter To Be Considered: Decisional Matter: Phthalates--NPR.
    A live Web cast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/live.

    Note: If there is a change in location of the meeting, we will 
post the location change on the CPSC Web site and on the CPSC Public 
Calendar as soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours before the 
meeting time. Please check our Web site for possible change in 
location.


CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Rockelle Hammond, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: December 10, 2014.
Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29316 Filed 12-10-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
#### Amanda D. Drake *v.*Thomas Bradly.

Husband and Wife — Estate of Wife — Liability of to Pay Debts.

A wife’s general estate is not liable for the debts of the husband, but is liable for those of the wife incurred before marriage, and for those contracted after marriage on account of the purchase of necessaries for herself or any member of her family, her husband included, as shall be evidenced by writing signed by herself and husband.

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

March 12, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The antenuptial deed of Drake to appellant did not convert her property into separate estate. The only effect it could have was to deprive him of the right he might otherwise have acquired by his marriage with the grantee; and by Art. 2, Chap. 47, Rev. Stat., her *427general estate is not liable for the debts of the husband contracted before or after marriage, but is liable for those of the wife incurred or contracted before marriage, and for such contracted after marriage on account of necessaries for herself or any member of her family, her husband included, as shall be evidenced by writing signed by herself and her husband.

*Morton & Parker, for appellant.*

*H. B. Higgins, for appellee.*

Appellees account is for goods sold to the husband and charged by his directions to his wife; and while the articles charged, or the most of them, may have been necessaries, still, as appellant never undertook to pay for said goods in writing with her husband, her estate is not liable for the debt of appellee.

Wherefore the judgment is *reversed*and the cause is remanded with direction for further proceedings consistent herewith.
FIRST RESPONDER INDOOR LOCATION

USING LTE DIRECT MODE OPERATIONS

PI: Howard Fan, fanh@ucmail.uc.edu, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computing Systems

Co-PI: Julian Wang, Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering and Construction Management

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH

Problem	Statement	

GPS signals cannot be received indoors.

Indoor location is a difficult problem, but is critically needed for emergency first responders.

Pre-installed indoor WiFi or beacon transmitter infrastructure may no longer be available in an emergency

situation.

Project	Schedule

Milestones

Milestone 1: Complete baseband waveform design, multipath mitigation (simulation), BIM data investigation.

Milestone 2: Complete communications protocol design, location computation, and BIM data extraction.

Milestone 3: Complete GUI interface design, Kalman filter design, and SDR implementation.

Final System Test and Demo: Final test and demo using an ad hoc network of SDRs.

LTE	DMO &	dTDOA METHOD

BIM	DATA	EXTRACTION

Schematic	Diagram INTERACTIVE	GUI

Feasibility study on the concept of an ad hoc wireless-network-based location service, leveraging future LTE D2D

voice communication service of the direct mode operations (DMO) on the same set of hardware devices

Use the dTDOA method, with multipath mitigation.

Design a network communications protocol for 1) the proposed location service, 2) the mission critical voice

service on the same LTE devices using the ProSe D2D standard.

Use standardized building information modeling (BIM) such as building interior layout, windows, doors, fire

extinguishers, etc. Display user locations overlaying on building interior layout.

Implement on SDRs, transmit over-the-air and test inside an actual building.

Objectives	

Approach	

Expected	Impact

1) Will enable location based services on a mission critical voice communications network, without adding

another set of devices. 2) Will help to save cost and reduce size, weight, and power of devices that a first

responder must carry.
11163.

#### Avera *v.*State of Georgia.

Stephens, J.

1. Under the prohibition act approved March 28, 1917 (Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1917, pp. 7, 17), providing for the condemnation of vehicles engaged in the transportation, along the public roads or private ways of this State, of liquors or beverages the sale or possession of which is prohibited by law, only a court having jurisdiction in the county where the vehicle is seized has jurisdiction of the condemnation proceedings. It follows, therefore, that in order to confer jurisdiction upon the court in which condemnation proceedings are instituted against such a vehicle *277under this act, it must affirmatively appear that the vehicle was seized within the county over which the court has jurisdiction.

Decided May 5, 1920.

Condemnation under liquor law; from Fulton superior court — Judge Humphries. October 30, 1919.

*Robert C. & Philip H. Alston, Blair Poster,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hughes Roberts,*contra.

2. The city of Atlanta being in both the counties of Fulton and DeKalb, evidence to the effect that the seizure was made near the corner of certain streets in the city of Atlanta does not affirmatively show that the seizure was made in the county of Fulton.

3. It not appearing that the vehicle sought to be condemned was seized in the county of Fulton and within the jurisdiction of the court, and an exception to the failure to prove the venue having been properly made as provided in an act approved August 21, 1911 (Ga. L. 1911, pp. 149, 150, Park’s Penal Code, § 1101 (a)), the judgment condemning the automobile and ordering it sold was without evidence to support it and contrary to law.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
#### Clark, Treasurer, *v.*Carter et al.

Tax.—Statute.—Indebtedness.—A tax-payer canuot, under the proviso to section 23 of the assessment law of 1869, 3 Ind. Stat. 511, deduct his indebtedness out of the amount of his “money at interest, either within or without this State,” as required to be given under the second head of the first or sworn statement provided for by said section.

APPEAL from the Clinton Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

Suit by the appellees against the appellant, the object of which was to enjoin the collection of certain taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed and levied against them, and which the treasurer was about to collect by seizure and sale of property. The result of the action was that the court enjoined the treasurer from collecting the taxes, and he appealed to this court.

*191
      *W. Morrow*and *N. Trusler,*for appellant.

*M. M. Ray, G. H. Voss, B. F. Davis,*and *J. A. Holman,*for appellees.

Section twenty-three of the assessment law, as found in the Acts of 1869, p. 122, and 3 Ind. Stat. 511, requires the party to be assessed to make out two statements, in which he is to set forth, under appropriate heads, his property liable to taxation. The first statement is to be made under oath, and the second without oath. In the first statement he is required to set down:

“ First. Money on hand or on deposit, either within or without this State.

“Second. Money at interest, either within or without this State.

“ Third. The value of all demands against any person or body corporate, either within or without this State,” etc.

After enumerating what shall be contained in the second, or unsworn statement, there is added this proviso: *“Provided,*That each tax-payer may and is hereby authorized to deduct the amount of his indebtedness out of his solvent claims.”

The question, and the only question, in this case is, whether the tax-payer can, by virtue of this proviso, deduct, his indebtedness out of the amount of his *“*money at interest, either within or without this State,” as required to be given under the second head in the first or sworn statement?

A majority of the court are of the opinion that he cannot, and that, as the circuit court held that he could, the judgment of that court must be reversed.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Pettit, C. J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000839950
<NAME> NORTH COAST ENERGY, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,330,079
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,198,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    159,008
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,873,985
<PP&E>                                      48,940,728
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,153,492
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,388,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,386,865
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,084
<COMMON>                                       227,572
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,863,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,388,992
<SALES>                                      5,107,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,107,380
<CGS>                                        4,237,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,237,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (45,558)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             999,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (84,538)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (84,538)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (84,538)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Morgans Foods, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does 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 annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
annual report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and
Rule 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
   Date: July 13, 2009
    /s/ Leonard R. Stein-SapirLeonard R. Stein-SapirChairman of the Board,
      Chief Executive Officer 51
#### Helen M. LOMAX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-2408.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 27, 2001.

Decided May 3, 2001.

Carr L. Kinder, Jr., Carr L. Kinder, Jr., P.C., Roanoke, VA, for appellant. Victor S. Skaff, III, Gentry, Locke, Rakes & Moore, Roanoke, VA, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Helen M. Lomax appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Schindler Elevator Corporation in her action in which she alleged a product liability claim and that Schindler’s negligence caused an elevator door to close too quickly on her, injuring her arm and shoulder. We have reviewed the briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Lomax v. Schindler Elevator Corp.,*No. CA-00-199-7 (W.D.Va. Oct. 3, 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.*
Visit www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr/open-innovation-prize-challenges for more information.

National Award Event Finalists

The Public Safety Research Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is pleased to 

invite the following teams the Tech to Protect National Award Event.

CONTEST 001: 360 Degree View: A Mobile Dashboard for Your Network Security

• Beam Reach

CONTEST 002: No Need To Repeat: Delivering Mission Critical Communications

• Critical Access

• MCPTT Application

• Next-Gen MCPTT

• Team Talk

• Trailblazer

CONTEST 003: Looking Under the Hood: Using Augmented Reality to Help Save Trapped Passengers

• Extrication Buddy

CONTEST 004: Got You Covered: Mapping LTE Capabilities to Save Lives

• Map my LTE (LTE Coverage tool extension)

CONTEST 005: Fire Safety in 3D: Incentivizing Homeowners to Create Pre-Incident Plans for Firefighters

• Home Pro-Tech

CONTEST 006: Voice Commands to Virtual Assistants: Hands Free Device Control

• Apollo A.I.

• SIMBA

• Zenext : Transforming Public Safety through AI enabled Hands-free Technology

CONTEST 007: Sensor Integration: Monitoring Emergency Responders' Health

• FireHUD: Biometric IoT System for First Responders

• Harris County Proactive Biometric Monitoring

• Heart in Hand

CONTEST 008: No Coverage: Placing Deployable Networks in Emergencies

• Front-Ranger

CONTEST 009: Making the Case: Proactive Image Protection

• Authim

• Corroborator

• ESafe

• HC PIP

CONTEST 010: Organizing Chaos: Calming Catastrophe by Tracking Patient Triage

• Bio1 Systems’ PhysioCap: clinical data capture and transfer system for mass casualty incidents.

• CritSit Care

• Modern Triage Management by QuantaSTAT

• NaT: SALT (Na) Triage (T) Intelligent Assistant

• vTriage | Calming Catastrophe by Tracking Patient Triage