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

DA 22-0584

_________________

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

LORI DELOIS GUENTHNER,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 and

NEAL WAYNE GUENTHNER,

 Respondent and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Neil Wayne Guenthner, to all 

counsel of record, and to the Honorable Colette B. Davies, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 15 2023

02/15/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0584
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v George Oliveras, Respondent.

Submitted March 18, 2013;

decided March 26, 2013

Motion by Innocence Network for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and nine copies filed within seven days.
@article{1215066,
  author = {Olga Doronina and Zachary Grey and Andrew Glaws},
  title = {G2Aero: A Python package for separable shape tensors},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-20 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Open Source Software},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936722},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05408},
  language = {en},
}
Amarc Resources Ltd.: Exhibit 4.3 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com










July 24,
2013 

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

	Re:	Amarc Resources Ltd. (the "Company")
  
	 	Annual Report on Form 20-F 
	 	Consent of Expert 


This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
20-F annual report for the year ended March 31, 2013 (the “Annual Report”), to
be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “SEC”).

I, Reno Pressacco, P.Geo., hereby consent to the use of my name
in connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of the
resource estimate in the following technical report (the "Technical Report"):


	Technical Report on the Initial Mineral Resource Estimate for the Newton
  Project, Central British Columbia, Canada, amended December 19, 2012 


and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the
information derived from the Technical Report related to me in the Annual
Report. 

Yours truly, 

	(Signed) 	“Reno
      Pressacco” 	 
	  	  	 
	Name: 	Reno Pressacco, P.Geo. 	 
	Title: 	Principal Geologist 	 
	  	RPA Inc. 	 



	 	 
	RPA Inc. 55 University Ave. Suite 501 | Toronto, ON,
      Canada M5J 2H7 | T +1 (416) 947 0907 	www.rpacan.com
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7669

ANTONIO PERRY-EL, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:07-cv-371) 

Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 2, 2008 

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Antonio Perry-EL, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Antonio Perry-EL seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Perry-EL 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
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.                  

###### U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Georgia Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will convene at 1:30 p.m. and adjourn at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 15, 2009, at the Barnes Law Group, 31 Atlanta Street, Marietta, Georgia 30060. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Committee's report on fair housing enforcement in Georgia and discuss the Committee's activity plan for fiscal year 2010.

                    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The address is 61 Forsyth St., SW., Suite 18T40, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Persons wishing                           ( print page 30046)                        to e-mail their comments, present their comments at the meeting, or who desire additional information should contact Dr. Peter Minarik, Regional Director, at (404) 562-7000 or 800-877-8339 for individuals who are deaf, hearing impaired, and/or have speech disabilities or by e-mail to                     *pminarik@usccr.gov.*

Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

                    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,                     *http://www.usccr.gov,*                     or to contact the Southern Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address.                

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

Dated in Washington, DC, June 18, 2009.

Martin Dannenfelser,

Staff Director.

[FR Doc. E9-14758 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE  P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rufus Rock, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 54]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J., on motion; Budd G. Goodman, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June 17, 2004, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The motion court properly denied defendant’s motion to controvert the search warrant without a hearing. Even assuming that defendant had standing *(see People v Whitfield,*81 NY2d 904, 906 [1993]), he did not demonstrate his entitlement to an evidentiary hearing, since he failed to support his allegation with sufficient proof demonstrating that the warrant affidavit was suspect *(see Franks v Delaware,*438 US 154, 171 [1978]; *People v Tambe,*71 NY2d 492, 504 [1988]). Defendant never attacked the credibility of the affiant, but instead denied engaging in the criminal conduct reported to the affiant. Since there is no evidence of deliberate manipulative police conduct *(see Franks v Delaware,*438 US at 163-164) and no evidence that the affiant was unreasonably relying on the informant’s information *(see People v Solimine,*18 NY2d 477 [1966]), there is no basis for a hearing *(see People v Villanueva,*161 AD2d 552 [1990]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
Exhibit
31.1


CERTIFICATION




I, Daniel
Imperato, certify that:




1.   I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imperiali,
Inc.;




2.  Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;




3.   Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;




4.   The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 report is being prepared;




(b)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and




(c)   Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s
internal control over financial reporting; and




5.   The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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:  May
      14, 2009
                /s/
      Daniel ImperatoDaniel
      ImperatoPrincipal
      Executive Officer
@misc{111371,
  author = {David Black and Gabrielle Long},
  title = {X-Ray Topography},
  year = {2004},
  month = {2004-02-04},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901559},
  language = {en},
}
EXHIBIT 21

BALDOR ELECTRIC COMPANY AND AFFILIATES

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                       |  |                    
|-------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARIES                   |  | LOCATION           
|Baldor of Arkansas, Inc.               |  | Arkansas           
|Baldor of Nevada, Inc.                 |  | Nevada             
|BEC Business Trust                     |  | Massachusetts      
|Baldor of Texas, L.P.                  |  | Texas              
|Baldor International, Inc.             |  | U.S. Virgin Islands
|Southwestern Die Casting Company, Inc. |  | Arkansas           
|Baldor UK Holdings, Inc.               |  | Delaware           
|Baldor UK Ltd                          |  | United Kingdom     
|Baldor Holdings, Inc.                  |  | Delaware           
|Baldor de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.         |  | Mexico             
|Baldor ASR AG                          |  | Switzerland        
|Baldor ASR GmbH fur Antriebstechnik    |  | Germany            
|Baldor ASR U.K. Limited                |  | United Kingdom     
|Baldor Italia S.r.l.                   |  | Italy              
|Baldor Australia Pty Ltd               |  | Australia          
|Baldor Electric (Asia) PTE, Ltd.       |  | Singapore          
|Northern Magnetics, Inc.               |  | California         
|Baldor Japan Corporation               |  | Japan              
|Baldor Investments, LLC                |  | Delaware           
|PowR Gard Generator Corp.             |  | Wisconsin          
|Energy Dynamics, Inc.                  |  | Wisconsin          
|Baldor Power Finance, Inc.             |  | Wisconsin          
|Baldor Electric India Pvt Ltd          |  | India              
|Baldor Panama, S.A.                    |  | Panama             
|Reliance Electric Company              |  | Delaware           
|Reliance Electric Company Europe GmbH  |  | Germany            
|Reliance Electric Company Canada ULC   |  | Canada             
|Dodge de Mexico S.A. de C.V.           |  | Mexico             
|Baldor Electric (Shanghai) Company LTD |  | China              
|REC Holding Inc.                       |  | Delaware           
|Reliance Electric Technologies LLC     |  | Delaware           
|Baldor Electric Company de Chile Ltda  |  | Chile              
|Baldor Canada Holdings, Inc.           |  | Delaware
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Bynum, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 116]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), imposed June 14, 2005, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Florio, J.P, Ritter, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### ROGERS v. ARZT et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

March 7, 1941.

David Hoffmann, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges, of New York ' City, for B. Charles Gould and others.

*582Horace S. Manges, of New York City (Leonard L. Kalish, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for Blossom Products Corporation.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

The court has before it three motions:

First, the defendant, Blossom Products Corp. seeks to quash the alleged service of the summons upon it;

Second, defendants, B. Charles Gould, Nat Baumgart and Ohrbachs, Inc., have moved to vacate and set aside their respective defaults in failing to serve and file their answer within the prescribed time;

Third, said defendants also affirmatively move to compel the plaintiff herein to post security for costs.

Service of the summons and complaint upon defendant, Blossom Products Corp., was effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint herein upon one Mary A. Hellerley. In her affidavit filed in support of this motion she swears that she is employed by the Rayon Corp. of America (not a party to this suit) in the capacity of a stenographer and telephone switchboard operator. She states that she is “not an officer, nor managing agent, nor general agent of Blossom Products Corporation, nor have I ever been authorized to accept service of process in behalf of Blossom Products Corporation.” Such service of process does not comply with the requirements of Rule 4(d) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, nor 28 U.S.C.A. § 109. Cf. Goetz v. Interlake S. S. Co., D.C., 47 F.2d 753, 757. The motion to quash the service of the summons and complaint herein must be granted.

With respect to defendants, B. Charles Gould, Nat Baumgart and Ohrbachs, Inc., motions to vacate their defaults in not serving their respective answers herein, I am of the opinion, from a reading of the submitted papers, that these defaults arose out of a misunderstanding between counsel for the respective parties. Therefore these motions are granted and the said defendants are directed to file their answers within ten (10) days after entry of an order herein.

These same defendants also move to require the plaintiff to post security for costs as to each defendant. The problem of security for costs is not covered either by any federal statute or rule of civil procedure. Rule 34, however, of this district’s local rule provides that in that event the old equity practice must be resorted to with respect to procedural problems. The granting of security for costs under the old equity practice was within the discretion of the court. In light of the facts disclosed, I am inclined not to grant the application. Motion denied.

Settle order on notice.
#### COOPER v. CHASE & CO., Inc.

No. 30.

District Court, S. D. Florida, Orlando Division.

April 1, 1942.

'T. Warren Messick, of Roanoke, for plaintiff.

T. P. Warlow and A. E. Carpenter, both of Orlando, Fla., for defendant.

AKERMAN, District Judge.

This cause coming on to be heard on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, counsel for the defendant appeared in person, and counsel for the plaintiff submitted a brief.

The Court is of the opinion that the motion to dismiss must be granted. The alleged libelous letter should either be set out in haec verba or its legal tenor pleaded in order that the Court may determine whether or not the same is libelous.

Counsel for defendant will prepare and present to the Court an order sustaining the motion to dismiss and allowing the plaintiff until May 4th to file an amended complaint, if he so desires.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7283

DONNELL CHRISTOPHER LEWIS,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00818-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnell Christopher Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donnell Christopher Lewis seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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 petition 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 

Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, deny his motions to appoint counsel and compel the 

production of evidence, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 
3

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
@article{1216091,
  author = {Dipanjan Saha and Dacen Waters and Ching-Chen Yeh and Swapnil Mhatre and Ngoc Thanh Mai Tran and Heather Hill and Kenji Watanabe and Takashi Taniguchi and Matthew Yankowitz and David B. Newell and Albert Rigosi},
  title = {Graphene-Based Analog of Single-Slit Electron Diffraction},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-15 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Physical Review B},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956364},
  language = {en},
}