alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39379

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBERT EARL SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 771

Filed: December 21, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Franklin County. Hon. Mitchell W. Brown, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with two years 

determinate, for sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jason M. Gray, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Robert Earl Smith pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years. 

Idaho Code § 18-1506(1)(d). The district court sentenced Smith to a unified term of eight years, 

with two years determinate. Smith appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 

1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 
2

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Smith’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
§ 292.19 How will the Regional Director conduct the consultation process? ( a ) The Regional Director will send a letter that meets the requirements in § 292.20 and that solicits comments within a 60-day period from: ( 1 ) Appropriate State and local officials; and
( 2 ) Officials of nearby Indian tribes.
( b ) Upon written request, the Regional Director may extend the 60-day comment period for an additional 30 days.
( c ) After the close of the consultation period, the Regional Director must: ( 1 ) Provide a copy of all comments received during the consultation process to the applicant tribe; and
( 2 ) Allow the tribe to address or resolve any issues raised in the comments.
( d ) The applicant tribe must submit written responses, if any, to the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of the consultation comments.
( e ) On written request from the applicant tribe, the Regional Director may extend the 60-day comment period in paragraph (d) of this section for an additional 30 days.
Certificate of Amendment to the Registrant's Certificate of Incorporation



 Exhibit 10.1 
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 
 OF 
 CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 
 OF 
 TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 
 It is hereby certified
as follows: 
 FIRST: The name of the corporation is: Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Corporation”). 
 SECOND: The certificate of incorporation of the Corporation was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on February 7, 1992 (the
“Certificate of Incorporation”). 
 THIRD: The Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended by striking Article FOURTH thereof in its
entirety and substituting in lieu thereof a new Article FOURTH, which shall read in its entirety as follows: 
 “FOURTH: The total number
of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporation shall be authorized to issue is One Hundred Thirty Million (130,000,000) shares, of which One Hundred Twenty-Five Million (125,000,000) shall be designated as Common Stock, par value
of $.001 per share, and Five Million (5,000,000) shall be designated as Preferred Stock, par value of $.001 per share.” 
 FOURTH: This
Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation has been duly adopted by the Board of Directors and approved by the stockholders of the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned affirms that the statements made herein are true under the
penalties of perjury, this 29th day of May, 2008. 
  

	
	/s/ Marc Rubin
	Name: Marc Rubin, M.D.
	Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2010346EN.01002902.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/29

---

Action brought on 17 September 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-458/10)

()

2010/C 346/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that by failing to transpose fully and correctly Article 9(3)(b),(c) and (e) of Directive 98/83/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)(b),(c) and (e) of Directive 98/83/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by failing to transpose fully and correctly Article 9(3)(b),(c) and (e) of Directive 98/83/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)(b),(c) and (e) of Directive 98/83/EC;

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission bases its action on two grounds of complaint.

By its first ground of complaint, the Commission maintains that the transposition of points (b) and (c) of Article 9(3) of Directive 98/83 (1) is incomplete. The national legislation does not provide that the derogation must contain ‘previous relevant monitoring results’ and does not refer to ‘the quantity of water supplied each day’, ‘the population concerned’ and ‘whether or not any relevant food-production undertaking would be affected’.

1

By its second ground of complaint, the Commission claims that the transposition of point (e) of Article 9(3) of Directive 98/83 is incomplete and incorrect, since the Luxembourg authorities claim, inter alia, that, given that it is the party requesting a derogation who is responsible for defining and implementing remedial measures, it is that party who should provide a ‘summary of the plan’, a ‘timetable for the work’ and an ‘estimate of the cost’ of the measures, and not the party making the decision to grant the derogation, as required by the directive.

---

(1)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32)

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 126 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 126

 To terminate the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

 Mr. Feingold introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To terminate the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Uniformed Services University of the 
Health Sciences Termination and Deficit Reduction Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH 
              SCIENCES.

    (a) Termination.--
            (1) In general.--The Uniformed Services University of the 
        Health Sciences is terminated.
            (2) Conforming amendments.--
                    (A) Chapter 104 of title 10, United States Code, is 
                repealed.
                    (B) The table of chapters at the beginning of 
                subtitle A of such title, and at the beginning of part 
                III of such subtitle, are each amended by striking out 
                the item relating to chapter 104.
    (b) Effective Dates.--
            (1) Termination.--The termination of the Uniformed Services 
        University of the Health Sciences under subsection (a)(1) shall 
        take effect on the day after the date of the graduation from 
        the university of the last class of students that enrolled in 
        such university on or before the date of the enactment of this 
        Act.
            (2) Amendments.--The amendments made by subsection (a)(2) 
        shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
        except that the provisions of chapter 104 of title 10, United 
        States Code, as in effect on the day before such date, shall 
        continue to apply with respect to the Uniformed Services 
        University of the Health Sciences until the termination of the 
        university under this section.
                                 <all>
```
Off-Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants

What does this 

program do?

USDA Rural Development 

provides low interest loans and 

grants to eligible borrowers to 

develop or rehabilitate affordable 

rental housing for very-low, lowor moderate-income domestic, 

migrant, and seasonal farm 

laborers. Borrowers must

not otherwise be able to get 

commercial credit.

Who can apply for this program?

• Broad-based nonprofit

organizations

• Nonprofit organization of

farmworkers

• Federally recognized Indian

Tribes

• Community organizations

• States or local governments

• Limited partnerships with a nonprofit

general partner. Must meet 7 CFR

3560.55(d) requirements (available at

this link: https://go.usa.gov/xMfCp)

Eligible Tenants

• Includes domestic farm laborers,

individuals who earn a substantial

portion of their income from farm

labor and their families, retired

farm laborers and their families,

or disabled farm laborers and

their families.

• Occupants must be U.S. citizens,

permanent residents, or those

legally admitted to this country

and authorized to perform work

in agriculture.

• Income eligibility is based on

household size, and ranges from

very-low to moderate-income.

What governs this program?

• Off-Farm: 7 CFR 3560 Subpart L,

available at this link:

https://go.usa.gov/xe97g

• Title V of the Housing Act of 1949,

available at this link:

https://go.usa.gov/xMwFR

For More Information

Please contact Multifamily Housing 

toll-free at 800-292-8293, or visit 

https://www.rd.usda.gov/multifamily

and scroll to the bottom of the page 

to find your processing and review 

branch, based on the state in which 

your project is located.

NOTE: Because citations and other information may be subject to change, 

please always consult the program instructions listed in the section above titled

“What Governs This Program?” You may also contact our Multifamily Housing staff

for assistance. You will find additional forms, resources, and program information at 

rd.usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

March 2024

Together, America Prospers

Program Features

Funding

Announced annually 

through a Notice of 

Solicitation of Applications

(NOSA) placed in the 

Federal Register.

Grant Amount

Grants are available only to 

nonprofit entities and can 

fund up to 90 percent of the 

project cost.

Loan Amount

The maximum loan amount 

is indicated in the Federal 

Register NOSA.

Interest Rate

The interest rate is 1 

percent per annum.

Loan Term

33 years

Rental Assistance

Rental Assistance (RA) and 

Operating Assistance (OA) 

information appears in the 

annual NOSA.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00581-CR

Javier PARRA-PEREA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 14, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 501025

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding1

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED 

and this appeal is DISMISSED. 

SIGNED December 28, 2016.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

 1 The Honorable Raymond Angelini, retired, sitting by assignment.
#### § 381.455 [Reserved]
#### Henry H. Vought and Nathan F. Vought, Respondents, v. Jennie K. Stafford, Impleaded with James Blaine and John F. Schotz, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. .
# C_2010301EN.01005701.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/57

---

Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Laufen Austria v Commission

(Case T-411/10)

()

2010/C 301/91

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laufen Austria AG (Wilhelmsburg, Austria) (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul in part Articles 1 and 2 of the Decision of the European Commission of 23 June 2010 with regard to the fine imposed on Laufen Austria (considered both individually and jointly and severally with Roca Sanitario) for the alleged infringement of Article 101 TFEU; and consequently |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in part Articles 1 and 2 of the Decision of the European Commission of 23 June 2010 with regard to the fine imposed on Laufen Austria (considered both individually and jointly and severally with Roca Sanitario) for the alleged infringement of Article 101 TFEU; and consequently

| — | reduce the fine imposed on Laufen Austria, considered individually and jointly and severally with Roca Sanitario, in accordance with the claim set out in the application, in so far as the Court deems it appropriate on the grounds stated or on other grounds which it may consider; |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fine imposed on Laufen Austria, considered individually and jointly and severally with Roca Sanitario, in accordance with the claim set out in the application, in so far as the Court deems it appropriate on the grounds stated or on other grounds which it may consider;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Laufen Austria. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Laufen Austria.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as in Case T-408/10 Roca Sanitario v Commission.

Roca Sanitario

Commission

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in that case.

It is maintained, in particular, that the decision at issue, in holding that the applicant did not operate independently on the market and declaring Roca Sanitario to be responsible for its conduct, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

In that regard and in the alternative, the decision infringes Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty as well as the principle of individual responsibility for infringements and the principle of proportionality, in relation to the amount of the fine imposed individually on the applicant for the infringement allegedly committed prior to its acquisition by Roca Sanitario. That amounts exceeds 10 % of its turnover in the year preceding adoption of the contested decision and has been incorrectly established.

---
### §1645. Business credit cards; limits on liability of employees

The exemption provided by section 1603(1) of this title does not apply to the provisions of sections 1642, 1643, and 1644 of this title, except that a card issuer and a business or other organization which provides credit cards issued by the same card issuer to ten or more of its employees may by contract agree as to liability of the business or other organization with respect to unauthorized use of such credit cards without regard to the provisions of section 1643 of this title, but in no case may such business or other organization or card issuer impose liability upon any employee with respect to unauthorized use of such a credit card except in accordance with and subject to the limitations of section 1643 of this title.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, §135, as added Pub. L. 93–495, title IV, §410(a), Oct. 28, 1974, 88 Stat. 1519.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 28, 1974, see section 416 of Pub. L. 93–495, set out as a note under section 1665a of this title.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ending December 31,2004 of Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”), asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Robert P. Cochran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|        | By:    | /s/ ROBERT P. COCHRAN    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |   | December 19,  2005  |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

1

----
RE: Revision to th West Virginia State Implementatio Plan for Clean Air Act Section 110(a) 2)(A)-(M) Requirements for Ozone and ine Particulates Joe Manchin III, Governor andy c. Huffinan, Cabinet Secretary

www.wvdep.org 

# - dep

west virginia department of environmental protecti n Executive Office 601 57"' Street SE Charleston, WV 25304 October 1,2009
Mr. William C. Early Acting Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region III (3RAOO) 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Dear Administrator Early: On behalf ofthe State ofWest Virginia, Iamherein submitting are ision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to satisfy state requirements for ozone and fine particulates obligations under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M). The SIPre ision includes appropriate documentation which demonstrates that state and federal a inistrative procedural requirements have been fulfilled, including public participation. The pu lie comment period ended September 21, 2009. This SIP revision demonstrates that West Virginia has adequate res urces and authority to implement the 2006 PM25 NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQ . Additionally, the state is supplementing its existing Section 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) infrastructure S forthe 1997 PM25 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS, only with respect to the enforcement authority r quirements under CAA Section 11O(a)(2)(C).

Promoting a healthy environment.Letter to William C. Early

Page 2 October 1,2009

Ifyou have any questions regarding this submittal, orrequire additi nal information, please contact John A. Benedict, Director ofthe Division ofAir Quality at (30 ) 926-0462. Sincerely, Randy C. Huffman Cabinet Secretary RCH/jlm Enclosure cc: Diana Esher (3APOO) John A. Benedict, Director, WVDEP

Promoting a healthy environment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1710

MATTHEW J. BENNETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(CA-04-705-7-GEC)

Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 1, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Matthew J. Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen M. Wolfinger,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Matthew J. Bennett appeals from the district court’s

orders dismissing his complaint in which he requested that the

district court enjoin the withholding of federal income tax from

his wages pursuant to instructions from the Internal Revenue

Service to his employer, and denying his motion for reconsideration

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We affirm in part and dismiss

in part.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days

after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,

361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order dismissing the complaint was

entered on the docket on March 29, 2005. The notice of appeal was

filed on June 21, 2005. Because Bennett failed to file a timely

notice of appeal from the dismissal order or to obtain an extension

or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the

appeal.
- 3 -

Bennett’s notice of appeal was timely, however, with respect

to the district court’s June 9, 2005, order denying his motion for

reconsideration of the dismissal. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion denying the motion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this order for the

reasons stated by the district court. Bennett v. United States,

No. CA-04-705-7-GEC (W.D. Va. filed June 9, 2005; entered June 10,

2005). Additionally, we deny the United States’ motion for

sanctions. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART