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

Cause No. DA 23-0560

LAURA MARIE OBERT,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA, and CORY

SWANSON, Broadwater County Attorney,

Defendants and Appellees,

and

MARTIN LAMBERT,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Pursuant to Appellee State of Montana’s Unopposed Motion for Extension 

of Time to file its response brief and good cause shown,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee State of Montana’s Motion is 

GRANTED. Appellee’s response brief will be due on or before April 2, 2024.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 1 2024

03/01/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0560
CIRCUIT COURT OF BATH COUNTY

#### Hot Springs Lodge No. 1817, Loyal Order of Moose v. Va. Hot Springs, Inc.

February 29, 1984

By JUDGE DUNCAN M BYRD, JR.

The issue presented in this demurrer involves interpretation and application of Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, § 8.01-580. This section provides:

> No such award shall be set aside, except for errors apparent on its face, unless it appear to have been procured by corruption or other undue means, or that there was partiality or misbehavior in the arbitrators or umpires, or any of them. But this section shall not be construed to take away the power of courts of equity over awards.

Assuming that there was an "automatic reversion" upon default and thus an error of law by the arbitrators, the real issue for resolution then becomes whether or not the mistake would be palpable or very palpable.

The word palpable seems to have first appeared in this type of case as early as 1793, in the case of *Pleasants, Shore & Co. and Anderson v.*Ross, 1 Va. (1 Wash.) 156 at 157 (1793). The general rule which seems to have developed early on in our common law is that "Where arbitrators mean to decide according to law, and they mistake the law in a palpable material point the award will be set aside". *City of Portsmouth*v. *Norfolk County,*72 Va. (31 Gratt.) 727 (1879). *164However, the Court should not set aside an award merely because it may differ with an arbitrator as to the law of the case. *Id.,*p. 733. The decision of the arbitrator upon a doubtful point of law, or in a case where the decision is designedly left to their judgment will generally be held conclusive. *Id.,*p. 734. It must appear they grossly mistook the law.

As cited by the Defendant, our Supreme Court has recently characterized palpable error as those of such "a nature, as to induce a belief that they must have proceeded from some improper bias in the minds of the arbitrators, or from some gross misbehaviour or inattention." *United Paperworkers Int’l Union*v. *Chase Bag Co., 222*Va. 324, 329, 281 S.E.2d 807, 810 (1981) (quoting *Hollingsworth*v. *Lupton & Wife,*18 Va. (4 Munf.) 114, 117 (1813)).

Again, assuming the truth of the Complainant, the error is apparent and results in a 22.5% difference in the award. The Court is of the opinion that this would be a palpable error of gross inattention. The Demurrer should be overruled.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 
 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Consortium Service Management Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Gordon W. Allison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d)); and
 
 (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  ****Date: August 26, 2004
By:
/s/ Gordon W. AllisonGordon W. AllisonChief Financial Officer
 
 
 The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
 
 
 Exhibit 32.1
Page 1 of 1 Page
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          88,900                   5,548
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,094                  21,695
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,577                  29,333
<PP&E>                                          12,748                   5,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 372,639                  74,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,823                   1,052
<BONDS>                                        275,701                  40,136
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           105                      92
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,803                  35,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   372,639                  74,819
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,779                  18,896
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,768                  20,283
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    88                     111
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,536                     194
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,411)                 (1,514)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       298                      12
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,709)                 (1,526)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,709)                 (1,526)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.77)                  (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.77)                  (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         440,865
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  224,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,020,904
<PP&E>                                         217,470
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,261,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,416,923
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,986,074
<PREFERRED>                                  1,136,948
<COMMON>                                    41,940,330
<OTHER-SE>                                 (55,269,967)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (12,192,689)
<SALES>                                        675,466
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               675,466
<CGS>                                           54,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               344,192
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             575,173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (297,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (297,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (297,900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### LAKESIDE EXCURSIONS LLC; James L. Nix, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY, INC., Defendant—Appellee.

No. 07-55088.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 9, 2008.*

Filed June 12, 2008.

Daniel Markoff, Esq., Markoff & Boyers, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Tim A. Goetz, Tim Goetz Law Firm, Torrance, CA, Raymond E. Hane, Esq., Waller, Lansden, Dortch *&*Davis, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: TROTT, THOMAS and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*575MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs James L. Nix and Lakeside Excursions, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their diversity action against Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). *See Henderson v. Duncan,*779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986). The record reveals that Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly missed the deadlines set by the district court and the district court gave multiple warnings about dismissing the case. The Plaintiffs also failed to file a formal motion to continue the trial as required by the local rules. In light of these failures, as well as the factors typically considered when determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, the district court was well within its discretion in dismissing the case.

We conclude Plaintiffs did not establish a good excuse for the failure to prosecute, thus we do not review the district court’s denial of the request for a continuance. *See Ash v. Cvetkov,*739 F.2d 493, 497-98 (9th Cir.1984); *see also Al-Torki v. Kaempen,*78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in Form S-8 Registration Statements (Nos. 33-66672, 33-66674,
333-33902 and 333-33904) and Form S-3 Registration Statements (Nos. 33-47390,
33-96848, 333-24353, 333-52703, 333-46392 and 333-67056) of our report dated
March 29, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the
financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for JMAR
Technologies, Inc.



                                        /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN, LLP


San Diego, California
March 29, 2002
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50447

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODOLFO MARQUEZ-CARREON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-01-CR-1682-ALL-DB 

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

August 22, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodolfo Marquez-Carreon appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of attempting to illegally

reenter the United States after deportation in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid

because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment

prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Marquez-Carreon complains that

his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an

aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the sentencing
No. 02-50447 

-2-

provision violates the Due Process Clause. Alternatively,

Marquez-Carreon contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the

aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Marquez-Carreon acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Order filed January 16, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-11-01092-CV

MARK THORNTON AND DEBRA DEMPSEY THORNTON, Appellant

V.

AMANDA CASH AND DANA VARNEY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-19565

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed February 3, 2012. Our review has determined 

that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.5(c). The record does not contain (1) Motion for Enforcement of Post Judgment 

Temporary Orders and Order to Appear filed July 2, 2012; (2) Order on Motion for 

Clarification of Prior Order for Possession or Access signed September 28, 2012; 

(3) Docket sheet related to hearing on September 20, 2012.

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before January 28, 2013, containing (1) Motion for Enforcement of 
Post Judgment Temporary Ordersa nd Order to Appear filed July 2, 2012; (2) 

Order on Motion for Clarification of Prior Order for Possession or Access signed 

September 28, 2012; (3) Docket sheet related to hearing on September 20, 2012.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of AVANIR Pharmaceuticals (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory
P. Hanson, 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:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

                       /s/ Gregory P. Hanson, CMA
                       --------------------------------
                       Gregory P. Hanson, CMA
                       Chief Financial Officer

December 22, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc.
(the Company), certifies that:



|1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 1, 2006 (the Report) of the Company to which this certification is an exhibit fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of January 1, 2006 and
for the period then ended.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 14, 2006



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ William A. McDonnell                  
|William A. McDonnell                      
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 23-0483

HAZEL NOONAN,

Appellant,

vs.

JOHN MICHAEL CONNORS.

Appellee.

 

ORDER

Upon receipt of Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Reply Brief – First Request, and good cause shown, it is hereby ordered that the 

Motion is GRANTED. Appellant shall file her Reply brief on or before March 27, 

2024.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 27 2024

02/27/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0483
EXHIBIT 32.1

# Certificate of Chief
Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 dated August 1, 2003

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer CNET
Networks, Inc. (CNET) hereby certifies that:

| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CNET for the quarterly period ended September 30,
               2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2004
               (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
               15(d), as applicable, 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 CNET.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated:   November 8, 2004 /S/ Shelby W. Bonnie
Shelby W. BonnieChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CNET and will be
retained by CNET and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 12, 2019

NO. 03-18-00077-CR

Jeff Harold Gumtow, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES KELLY AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.