alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1.4

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0398 ZACHARY RUSK,

Petitioner and Appellant,
v. THOMAS ROSEEN, CINDY ROSEEN, and SHAWN ROSEEN,

Respondents and Appellees. 

### MAR 2 2 2022

BOVVell GreerrivvOod Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

OnFebruary4,2022,AppellantZachary Rusk (Rusk) filed apetition forrehearingof this Court's January 25, 2022, Opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal ofRusk's request for injunctive and declaratory reliefwith prejudice. Rusk v. Roseen, DA 21-0398, 2022 MT 21N, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 62. Appellees indicated their intent to file a response motion opposing Rusk's petition for rehearing by March 11, 2022; however, no response was ever filed. We nevertheless proceed with our ruling on Rusk's petition for rehearing. Under M. R. App. P. 20, this Court seldom grants petitions for rehearing. The rule makes clear that this Court will entertain a petition for rehearing on very limited grounds. This Court will consider a petition for rehearing only ifthe opinion "overlooked some fact material to the decision," ifthe opinion overlooked a question that would have decided the case,orifthe "decision conflictswith a statute or controllingdecision not addressed"bythe Court. M. R. App. P. 20. Having fully considered Rusk's petition, the Court concludes that rehearing is not warranted under Rule 20. The Court did not overlook material facts or issues raised by the parties or fail to address a controlling statute or decision that conflicts with the Opinion. Furthermore, in light ofour denial ofRusk's petition for rehearing, we decline to rule on Rusk's subsequent February 22, 2022 "Motion for Contempt and Forthwith Rescinding of [the Court's] Order for Extension ofTime." 03/22/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0398IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties and counsel of record. 

# ,c] Dated this C r-- day ofMarch, 2022.

2 

# . g,,6,,.e6-- (7-t-1 1- 7--


# , i
.._ .Justicees 

# ‘„
#### LSI LOGIC CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF the STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-16759.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

David A. Gauntlett, Esq., Attorney at Law, James A. Lowe, Esq., Gauntlett *&*Associates, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert G. Seeds, Esq., Archer, McCo-mas, Breslin, McMahon & Chritton, H. Paul Breslin, Esq., Archer Norris, Walnut Creek, CA, Limor Lehavi, Esq., Archer Norris, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GRABER, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

From May 1990 through May 2004, LSI Logic Corporation (“LSI”) purchased foreign commercial general liability insurance from the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (“ICSOP”). The policy provided that ICSOP owed a duty to defend if LSI incurred liability in a lawsuit alleging advertising injury and arising in the coverage territory. The coverage territory excluded the United States. LSI sought coverage from ICSOP for a U.S. patent suit brought by Philips Corporation (“Philips”) alleging infringement of their U.S. Patent No. 4,689,740 (“'740 patent”) “within the United States.”

We adopt the reasoning set forth in the district court’s decision of August 5, 2004, holding that LSI failed to meet the coverage-territory requirement of the policy. LSI’s website descriptions of the products that infringed Philips’ '740 patent do not constitute sufficient extraterritorial activity to render the facts underlying the U.S. patent suit within the coverage territory. Therefore, we conclude that ICSOP’s motion to dismiss was properly granted, and we decline to reach the remaining issues.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or

Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

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

(2) The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | SIMMONS BANK, TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 10, 2018 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RON E. HOOPER                                    
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Ron E. Hooper,                                       
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | SVP Royalty Trust Management                         
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Simmons Bank                                         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4068 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4068

  To clarify provisions relating to statutory copyright licenses for 
                          satellite carriers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2006

 Mr. Sununu (for himself and Mr. Gregg) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To clarify provisions relating to statutory copyright licenses for 
                          satellite carriers.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF STATUTORY COPYRIGHT LICENSE FOR SATELLITE 
              CARRIERS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 119 the following:
``Sec. 119A. Clarification of exclusive rights: secondary transmissions 
              of distant network signals for private home viewing by 
              certain satellite carriers
    ``(a) Statutory License Granted.--Notwithstanding any injunction 
issued under section 119(a)(7)(B), a satellite carrier found to have 
engaged in a pattern or practice of violations under section 
119(a)(7)(B) is granted a statutory license to provide a secondary 
transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a 
primary transmission made by a network station in accordance with the 
provisions of this section.
    ``(b) Significantly Viewed Signals.--Under the statutory license 
granted by subsection (a), a satellite carrier may provide a secondary 
transmission of a primary transmission made by a network station as 
provided under section 119(a)(2)(C)(i).''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 119 the following:

``119A. Clarification of exclusive rights: secondary transmissions of 
                            distant network signals for private home 
                            viewing by certain satellite carriers.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-171602, No. 333-173361 and No. 333-173362) and on Form S-4 (No. 333-178518) as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-4/A   
(No. 333-178518) of AbitibiBowater Inc. of our report dated February 29, 2012 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of
AbitibiBowater Inc. (Successor Company), and our report dated April 5, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of AbitibiBowater Inc. (Predecessor Company) which appear in this Annual report on
Form 10-K.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|February 29, 2012             
|Montreal, Quebec, Canada
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7652
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREDERICK RAY LINEBERGER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-90, CA-96-19-4-V) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: April 24, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Ray Lineberger, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lineberger , Nos. CR-93-90; CA-96-19-4-V (W.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0003776 06-JAN-2017 08:26 AM
#### State v. Reynolds

Case below: 160 N.C. App. 579

No. 588P03-2

Defs Motion for “Petition for Discretionary Review” (PWC-0) (COA02-1510)

Dismissed 01/25/07

Timmons-Goodson, J., and Hudson, J., Recused
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Van Z. Krikorian, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Global Gold
Corporation for the period ended September 30, 2007;

2) Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly
Report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Quarterly 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 Quarterly 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)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared;

b) [Reserved]

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this Quarterly Report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

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 the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


  Date: November 14, 2007                /s/ Van Z. Krikorian
                                         --------------------------
                                         Van. Z. Krikorian
                                         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### United States Parole Commission 

# Agency Holding Meeting: 

Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission. 

# Date and Time: 

10 a.m., Thursday, May 21, 2009. 

# Place: 

U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815. 

# Status: 

Closed. 

# Matters Considered: 

The following matter will be considered during the closed meeting: Approval or disapproval of a hearing examiner appointment. 

# Agency Contact:

 Thomas W. Hutchison, Chief of Staff, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5990. 

Dated: May 14, 2009. 

Rockne Chickinell, 

General Counsel,  U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. E9-11699 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), I, Joyce M. Schuldt, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation (the Company), hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that:

(1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 2, 2007 |  | /s/ Joyce M. Schuldt                                
|                        |  | Joyce M. Schuldt                                    
|                        |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-64,930]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 22, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Kaiser Aluminum, Greenwood, South Carolina.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of April 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10901 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick A. WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-31082

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James G. Cowles, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Walter M. Caldwell, IV, West Monroe, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

*649The attorney appointed to represent Patrick A. Wright has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Wright filed a response in which he alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to fairly evaluate the merits of this issue. Therefore, it is not reviewable on direct appeal. *See United States v. Higdon,*832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir.1987).

Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Wright’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, 'the court has determined that this opinion should not be *649published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with Quarterly Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Martin G. Paravato, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



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



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

Dated: May 9, 2006

|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ MARTIN G. PARAVATO                    
|Martin G. Paravato Chief Financial Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Ace. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### Teresa French, Appellant, v Rivershore Incorporated et al., Respondents.

[963 NYS2d 917]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Frank Caruso, J.), entered September 10, 2012. The order denied the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment on liability and denied the motion of plaintiff to dismiss or sever the third-party action.

Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on January 10, 2013, and filed in the Niagara County Clerk’s Office on January 14, 2013,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Present—Scudder, EJ., Peradotto, Sconiers, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.