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

No. DA 21-0616

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY THOMAS DISHON,

Defendant 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 August 15, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 12 2022

07/12/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0616
EXHIBIT 31: Rule 13a-14(a) Certification

I, Ralph Dickenson, certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of The Kingsley
Coach, 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
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this  report;

     4.  The small business issuer'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 small
business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

     a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to  adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal controls over financial reporting.


Date: November 18, 2004           /s/ Ralph Dickenson
                                  ----------------------------------------
                                  Ralph Dickenson, Chief Executive Officer
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2559 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2559

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the Federal building located at 601 East 12th Street in 
  Kansas City, Missouri, as the ``Richard Bolling Federal Building''.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2559

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
 To designate the Federal building located at 601 East 12th Street in 
  Kansas City, Missouri, as the ``Richard Bolling Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 601 East 12th Street in Kansas 
City, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ``Richard Bolling 
Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Richard Bolling 
Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 11698 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A028

- 654

- 967

BRUCE SOTONYE GOGO, Petitioner,

v ersus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________ ( January 11, 2018 )
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , MARTIN and JILL PRYOR , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Bruce Sotonye Gogo petitions for review of an order affirming the deni al of
his motion to reopen. The immigration judge denied Gogo’s motion as untimely

Case: 17-11698 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 1 of 22 and refus ed sua sponte to reopen his removal proceedings. We dismiss Gogo’s petition. We lack jurisdiction to review Gogo’s petition. Gogo argues that he was entitled to tolling of the period to file his motion because of a delay attributable to violating the order to depart voluntarily , but Gogo did not present that argument to the immigration judge or in his appeal to the Board. See Amaya

- Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 463 F.3d 124 7, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We also lack jurisdiction to
review the refusal of the immigration judge to reopen sua sponte its removal proceedings. See Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 525 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008). Although we retain jurisdiction to review “ constitutional claims or questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), our jurisdiction extends only to colorable constitutional claims, which are those that have “some possible validity.” Arias v.
U.S. Att ’ y Gen. , 482 F.3d 1281, 1284 & n.2 (11th Cir. 2007) . Gogo “has no constitutionally protected interest in purely discretionary forms of relief ,” like having his case reopened, that would implicate his right to due process, so we lack jurisdiction to review his petition. See Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 513 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir. 2008)

. We DISMISS Gogo’s petition. Case: 17-11698 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned office of Rim Semiconductor Company (the "Company"), do hereby
certify that to such officer's knowledge:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
January 31, 2006 (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.

This certification is made solely for the purposes of U.S.C. Section 1350, and
not for any other purpose.

March 17, 2006


/S/ BRAD KETCH
--------------------------------------
BRAD KETCH
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (AND PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STAR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. FORM 10-Q/A AMENDMENT NO 1 FOR THE QTR ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,808
<SECURITIES>                                    92,390
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,721
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212,829
<PP&E>                                         113,851
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 334,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,264
<BONDS>                                         38,648
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                     205,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   334,020
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               425,531
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  411,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   171
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,080
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,775
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,643
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,132
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
POLAND - Eligible Plants Certified to Export Meat to the United States

March 14, 2024

Updated items marked with an asterisk (*)

EstForgnNBR Establishment Name Date Listed Date Delisted Date Relisted

02200303 Tarczynski S.A. 08/09/2018

10023802 Animex Foods Sp. zo.o. Oddzial K4 w Kutnie 05/02/2013

10024001 Animex Kutno Spolka z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia Oddzial K2 w Kutnie 07/11/2014

10024002 Animex Kutno Spolka z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia Oddzial K1 w Kutnie 02/02/2016

14290201 Sokolow S.A. Oddzial w Sokolowie Podlaskim 04/12/2012

18034001 Sokolow Spolka Akcyjna Oddzial w Debicy 02/02/2016

18040201 Sokolow S.A. Oddzial w Jaroslawiu 04/12/2012

22023801 Zaklady Miesne Skiba S.A. Oddzial Ubojnia Trzody Chlewnej w Chojnicach 03/16/2015

22030207 Goodvalley Sp. zo.o. 77-320 Przechlewo ul. Mlynska 43B 04/30/2004

22621102

Americold Gdańsk Spółka z Ograniczoną Odpowiedzialnością, ul. Prof. Witolda 

Andruszkiewicza 5,80-601 Gdańsk Chłodnia Składowa w Gdyni, 81-061 Gdynia, ul. Hutnicza 

45 

07/10/2023

26110201 Animex Foods Spolka z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia ul. T. Chalubinskiego 8, 00 - 613 

Warszawa Oddzial w Starachowicach ul. Krancowa 4, 27-200 Starachowice 04/12/2012

28050201 Animex Foods Sp. zo.o. Oddzial w Elku 03/02/2017

28154003 Animex Foods Sp. zo.o. ul. T. Chalubinskiego 8, 00-613 Warszawa Oddzial w Morlinach 05/22/2012

30090201 Sokolow S.A. Oddzial w Kole 05/21/2007

30094204 Sokolow S.A. Oddzial w Kole "Pork Division" 01/01/2008

30184103 Profi Spolka Akcyjna 04/12/2012

30210225 Sokolow S.A. Oddzial w Robakowie 01/31/2013 04/19/2023

32620201 Animex Foods Sp. zo.o. ul. T. Chalubinskiego 04/30/2004

Bolded, underlined establishments are restricted for African Swine Fever (ASF) by USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) for Pork products produced under the following Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) process

categories: Raw-Intact, Raw-Non Intact, Not Heat Treated-Shelf Stable and Heat Treated-Not Fully Cooked-Not Shelf Stable

Page 1
[No. 34721-1-II.

Division Two.

August 28, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Robert Dean Heagy, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 04-1-01712-1, Sally F. Olsen, J., entered April 14, 2006. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Van Deren, A.C.J., concurred in by Armstrong and Penoyar, JJ.
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*May 20, 2010*

[Cite as *05/20/2010 Case Announcements,*2010-Ohio-2211.]

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2010-0325.

#### State v. Hawk.

Knox App. No. 2009 CA 000028, 2009-Ohio-6965. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. It appears from the records of the court that the appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due May 14, 2010, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by the court that this cause is dismissed sua sponte.
Exhibit 32.1


    Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C.
                                  Section 1350
     (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------


I, Michael C. Culver, as Chief Executive Officer of First Aviation Services Inc.
(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 my
knowledge:

(1)  the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
     period ended April 30, 2006 (the "Report"), filed with the U.S. Securities
     and Exchange Commission, 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 Company.


Dated: June 14, 2006


                                       /s/ Michael C. Culver
                                       ---------------------
                                       Michael C. Culver
                                       Chief Executive Officer


                                       21
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         520,592
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    247,630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,090,939
<PP&E>                                       7,984,777
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,412,060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,839,285  <F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,887,735  <F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          250,000  <F3>
<PREFERRED>                                  1,462,983
<COMMON>                                       156,437
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,824,987
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,839,285  <F1>
<SALES>                                         95,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               108,570
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,639,807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             108,424  <F4>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,649,873) <F5>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,649,873) <F5>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.11)
        

<FN>
<F1> Includes ($451,462) cumulative foreign currency translation adjustment,
     applicable to the net assets of the Canadian joint venture [Tag # 18 & Tag
     # 25]

<F2> Current liabilities include current maturities of long-term
     debt-stockholders of which $1,495,000 due January 2, 2000, as amended, is
     due to officers or directors [Tag # 19]

<F3> Represents balance of 7% Series B Convertible Preferred Stock [Tag # 21]

<F4> Interest expense includes $42,834 of amortization of debt discount and
     expenses, a non-cash item [Tag # 32]

<F5> Represents loss available for common stockholders, after deducting $11,851
     of Preferred Stock dividends [Tag #33 & Tag #39]
</FN>


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3291

_____________________________

DAVID ANTONIO WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela M. Cox, Judge.

October 4, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

David Antonio Williams, pro se, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2678

To restrict the implementation of proposals of the Task Force on Bureau

of Indian Affairs Reorganization.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 20, 1993

Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming (for himself, Mr. RICHARDSON, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, and Mr. CALVERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To restrict the implementation of proposals of the Task

Force on Bureau of Indian Affairs Reorganization.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RE4 PORT OF TASK FORCE ON BUREAU OF IN5 DIAN AFFAIRS.

6 (a) RESTRICTION.—Except as provided in subsection

7 (b), no reorganization proposal of the Task Force on

8 Bureau of Indian Affairs Reorganization established pur9 suant to Public Law 101–512 may be implemented until

10 the Task Force has recommended its implementation to
2

•HR 2678 IH

1 the Secretary of the Interior and such proposal has been

2 submitted to and approved by the Committee on Natural

3 Resources of the House of Representatives and the Com4 mittee on Indian Affairs of the Senate.

5 (b) EXCEPTION.—The Bureau of Indian Affairs may

6 submit to the committees referred to in subsection (a) a

7 reorganization proposal related only to management im8 provements, together with Task Force comments or rec9 ommendations, to the committees for their review and

10 disposition.

Æ
#### Marcelino G. ESPIRITU, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 2010-3163.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 28, 2011.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Marcelino G. Espíritu submits an informal brief out of time. He explains that the address used to send him a recent court order was incorrect.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The mandate is recalled, the court’s previous dismissal order is vacated, the petition is reinstated, and the informal brief is accepted for filing.

(2) The respondent should calculate its brief due date from the date of filing of this order.
#### In re: Robert Leo SHEPARD; et al., Debtors, *982Robert Leo Shepard, Appellant, v. Glenn Conklin, Appellee.

No. 10-60016.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 24, 2011.

Robert Leo Shepard, Oakhurst, CA, pro se.

David Ray Jenkins, David R. Jenkins, PC, Fresno, CA, for Appellee.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Leo Shepard, a Chapter 7 debt- or, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment determining that Shepard’s debt to Glenn Conklin was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and (a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian),*564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2009). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment. *Id.*We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment based on issue preclusion because a prior, final state court decision between the parties necessarily decided that Shepard committed “defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity” with respect to Conklin and inflicted “willful and malicious injury” on him. *See*11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4) and (a)(6); *see also Harmon v. Kobrin (In re Harmon),*250 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining that “[pjrinciples of collateral estoppel apply to proceedings seeking exceptions from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a),” and setting forth issue preclusion requirements under California law).

Shepard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.