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

No. DA 19-0706

IN THE MATTER OF:

N.A.,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

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

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 28, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 25 2020

08/25/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0706
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAVID TIMMONS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 371

[ June 28, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; William W. Haury , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 16

- 11390CF10A, 16

- 115150CF10A, 16

- 12358CF10A, 16

- 12490CF10A and 16

- 12829CF10A

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom Wm. Odom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C U RIAM

.
Affirmed.

T

AYLOR , D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
“NGA – From Seabed to Space”

November 15, 2023

12 – 4 p.m. ET

AGENDA

KEY THEMES/TOPIC AREAS/FLOW: 

Part 1:________________________________________________________________________

GREETING

Rick Myllenbeck; Moderator, NGA Industry Engagement Advisor

WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS

VADM Frank Whitworth; NGA Director

KEYNOTE: SETTING THE STRATEGIC STAGE

Tonya Wilkerson; NGA Deputy Director

PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICE (PEO) STRUCTURE 

Tim Clayton; Deputy, Acquisition Oversight

GEOINT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Mark Munsell; Director, Data and Digital Innovation Directorate

Rachael Martin; Director, Maven

Matt Gurrola; Director, Analysis Services Integrated Program Office 

Todd Johansen; Director Source Foundation GEOINT Group

Monte Turner; Director, Research Foundational GEOINT Office

COMMERCIAL DATA AND ANALYTICS/OPPORTUNITIES

Devin Brande; Director, Commercial Operations

Glenn Forinash; Director, Analysis Technology & Tradecraft Office
Part 2:________________________________________________________________________ 

PEO TECHNOLOGY – PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS/OPPORTUNITIES

Mark Chatelain; Director, CIO-T

RESEARCH – OVERVIEW AND HOW TO WORK WITH US

Ronzelle Green; Director, Research

CONTRACTING AND NGA SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM 

Kelly Pickering; Director, Office of Contracting Services

Johnetta Williams; Director, Small Business Program Office

Q&A

Rick Myllenbeck; Moderator

Audience can submit questions via chat for live responses

CLOSING REMARKS

Celia Hopkins; Host, NGA Deputy Component Acquisition Executive

_____________________________________________________________________________

Total Time: 4 Hours
CERTIFICATIONS

I, John Belden, certify that:   
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of OCTuS, 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; and
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.
I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have 
a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared; 
b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and 
c)
presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5.
I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 
a)
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 
b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
6.
I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.   
Date:
April 7, 2003
By:
/s/ John C. Belden 
John C. Belden 
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

- 13 -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Alice M. DEANE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARSHALLS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-1793.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 11, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 18, 2006.

Alice M. Deane, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Alice M. Deane seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her civil action. The district court’s final order was entered on the docket on May 25, 2006. Deane’s notice of appeal was not received by the district court until July 10, *4402006. Although Deane’s notice of appeal was filed beyond the thirty-day appeal period set forth in Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), she states in her notice of appeal that she did not receive the court’s final order until July 7, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed both within thirty days of the expiration of the appeal period and within seven days of the date Deane asserts she received notice of the district court’s entry of a final order. Thus, Deane’s statement in her notice of appeal may be properly construed as either a motion for an extension of time in which to note an appeal under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or as a motion to reopen the time to note an appeal under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6).

Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Deane can satisfy the requirements for either an extension of time or a reopening of the appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED.*
EXHIBIT 31.1    CERTIFICATION

I, Peter Keefe, Chief Executive Officer , certify that:

     1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form  10-QSB of  Earthworks
Entertainment, Inc.;

     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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

          a) Designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          c)  Presented  in this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

     5. The registrant's other certifying  officers and I have disclosed,  based
on our most  recent  evaluation,  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 in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b) Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls; and

     6. The registrant's other certifying  officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

August 11, 2004             /s/ PETER KEEFE
                           ---------------------
                            Peter Keefe
                            Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7802** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RONNIE DONTE RAND , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00329

- FL

- 3; 5:14

- cv - 00238

- FL )

Submitted : March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ronnie Donte Rand, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opi nions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronnie Donte Rand seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is n ot appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 53(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rand has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Stott v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

Case below: 183 N.C. App.-(1 May 2007)

No. 264P07

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1117)

Denied 10/11/07
[922 NE2d 872, 895 NYS2d 286]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William L. Hilts, Also Known as T and True, Appellant.

Argued November 18, 2009;

decided December 17, 2009

*896APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Lazer, Aptheker, Rosetta & Yedid, P.C.,*Melville *(David Lazer*of counsel), for appellant.

*Robert M. Carney, District Attorney,*Schenectady *(Gerald A. Dwyer*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

After one trial ended in a hung jury, defendant was convicted at a second trial of sale and possession of a controlled substance. The People’s main witness at the first trial was a police informant. The informant failed to appear for the second trial, and the People were permitted to introduce his previous testimony, pursuant to CPL 670.10. Defendant argues that this was error for two reasons: (1) he did not have a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the informant at the first trial; and (2) the People failed to show that the informant could not “with due diligence be found,” as CPL 670.10 (1) requires. We reject both arguments.

The basis for the first argument is that the People allegedly withheld, at the first trial, information relevant to the informant’s credibility. But the only information existing at the time of the first trial that was not disclosed to defendant consists of a conversation between the informant and the prosecutor, in which the informant asked for the prosecutor’s help in disposing of an unrelated case; the prosecutor replied that, after defendant’s trial, he would “revisit” the informant’s request with the office prosecuting the other matter. Considering the large *897quantity of evidence impeaching the informant’s credibility that defendant had available—and used—at the first trial, the informant’s request and the prosecutor’s noncommittal response were immaterial as a matter of law.

Defendant’s second argument fails because the record supports the affirmed finding that the People were unable to locate the informant with due diligence.

Defendant’s remaining arguments are without merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.
exhibit_10-1.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
      10.1

     

    On
      August
      14, 2007, Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., (Newfield), entered into
      an
      agreement with Lexington Resources, Inc., (Lexington), and Paluca Energy, LLC,
      (Paluca), to purchase all right title and interest of Lexington and
      Paluca.  

     

    Refer
      to the enclosed PDF exhibit for the entire, signed Purchase Order
      Agreement.
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 23.2
                                 ------------


                    Consent of Certified Public Accountants

To:  Breed Technologies, Inc.

Re:  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-54986)
     Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-54988)
     Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-54990)
     Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-73350)
     Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-22423)

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
referenced above of BREED Technologies, Inc. of our report dated 25 July, 1997
relating to the combined and consolidated statements of earnings, retained
earnings, and cash flows of the Momo Group as of and for the year ended June 30,
1997 which report appears in the 30 June, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of
BREED Technologies, Inc.



/s/ KPMG S.p.A.

KPMG S.p.A.
Milan, Italy
September 28, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50744

VETA GARVEY FARMER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INCORPORATED; 

US MAINTENANCE, INCORPORATED, 

doing business as US Maintenance; 

CINTAS CORPORATION No. 2,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:10-CV-591

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has reviewed this appeal in light of the briefs, oral argument,

and pertinent portions of the record. Upon review, we find no reversible error

of fact or law, nor any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s rulings. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIRCUIT

LOC. RULE 47.6.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 7, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-50744 Document: 00511979037 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2012
#### State v. Witherspoon

Case below: 178 N.C. App. 394

No. 418P06

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1467)

Denied 12/14/06
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement No. 333-72756 of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. of our report dated November 6, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended August 31, 2007.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Killman, Murrell & Company, P.C.
|Killman, Murrell & Company, P.C.    
|Houston, Texas                      
|November 13, 2007
English Translation of Supplementary Agreement dated August 30, 2006



 Exhibit 10.14 
 Supplementary Agreement 
 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT 
 Hongcheng Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Yang Xueshan entered into this Supplementary Agreement as of August 30, 2006 in accordance with Section 9.3 of
the Loan Agreement entered into by the Parties as of July 12, 2005 after friendly negotiation; the Parties agree to make the following amendments to the Loan Agreement: 
  

	1.	Section 1.4 of the Loan Agreement shall be amended as: “Lender and Borrower hereby agree and acknowledge that, in the event that relevant laws permit, Borrower may
transfer the Borrower’s Equity Interest in the Company in whole to Lender or Lender’s designated persons (legal or natural persons), and shall use the income of the transfer to repay the loan”. 

  

	2.	Section 1.7 of the Loan Agreement shall be amended as: “Interest of the Loan. Lender and Borrower hereby agree and acknowledge that, unless otherwise stipulated by this
Agreement, the Loan shall be interest-free; however, in the event that the income of Borrower from the transfer of the Borrower’s Equity Interest in the Company in whole to Lender or Lender’s designated persons (legal or natural persons)
is higher than the principal of the Loan, the difference shall be deemed the interest of the Loan under relevant laws then effective and shall be paid by Borrower to Lender.” 

 The Parties hereby also agree: 
  

	1.	Other clauses of the Loan Agreement shall remain the same. 

  

	2.	This Supplementary Agreement shall be effective upon being signed and/or affixed the official seals by the Parties. This Supplementary Agreement is made in two copies with equal
legal validity, each Party holding one copy. 

  

	3.	The validity of this Supplementary Agreement shall be retroacted to July 12, 2005. 

 Hongcheng Technology Development Co., Ltd. (Seal) 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Huang Bo

	Name:	 	Huang Bo
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Wang Gongquan

	Name:	 	Yang Xueshan
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2490 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2490

   To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain 
            machine tools for working wire of iron or steel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain 
            machine tools for working wire of iron or steel.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MACHINE TOOLS FOR WORKING WIRE OF IRON OR STEEL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.84.83 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain machine tools for 
working wire of iron or steel) is amended--
            (1) by striking the article description and inserting the 
        following: ``Machine tools for working wire of iron or steel, 
        numerically controlled, the foregoing certified for use in 
        production of radial tires designed for off-the-highway use and 
        for use on a rim measuring 63.5 cm or more in diameter 
        (provided for in subheading 4011.20.10, 4011.61.00, 4011.63.00, 
        4011.69.00, 4011.92.00, 4011.94.40, or 4011.99.45), and parts 
        thereof (provided for in subheading 8463.30.00 or 
        8466.94.85)''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350of Chapter 63**

**of Title 18 of the United StatesCode**

 

I,John E. Rooney, the chief executive officer of United States CellularCorporation, certify that (i) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe second quarter of 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of United States CellularCorporation.

 
|   |   | /s/  John E. Rooney |
|--------|--------|---------------------|
|   |   | John  E. Rooney     |
|   |   | August 7, 2008 |

 

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 has been provided to United States Cellular Corporation and will beretained by U.S. Cellular and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----