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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42399

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JEREMY E. THREATT,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 856

Filed: December 12, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Timothy L. Hansen, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Jeremy E. Threatt pled guilty to one count of rape and one count of penetration by a 

foreign object. Idaho Code §§ 18-6101, 18-6608. The district court sentenced Threatt to 

concurrent unified sentences of twenty-five years with five years determinate. Threatt filed an 

Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Threatt appeals asserting that 

the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Gill, 150 Idaho 183, 186, 244 P.3d 1269, 1272 (Ct. App. 2010). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 
2

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the 

denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent 

the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of 

Threatt’s Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the 

foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Threatt’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.0

                         AMERICAN REALTY INVESTORS, INC.

                            CERTIFICATE OF WITHDRAWAL
                               OF PREFERRED STOCK

                  Decreasing the Number of Authorized Shares of
               and Eliminating Series F Redeemable Preferred Stock

     American Realty Investors, Inc. is desiring to amend its Articles of
Incorporation, as heretofore amended, as more particularly described
hereinafter, hereby certifies as follows:

     1.   The name of the Corporation (the "Corporation") whose Articles of
Incorporation, as heretofore amended (the "Articles of Incorporation") are being
amended hereby is American Realty Investors, Inc.

     2.   Set forth immediately below is the text of the amendments (the
"Amendments") to the Articles of Incorporation being made hereby.

                                       A.

     Section 1 of the Designation (the "Designation") of the authorized number,
     preferences, limitations and relative rights of the Corporation's Series F
     Redeemable Preferred Stock is hereby amended to read as follows:

          1.   Number of Shares. The number of shares which shall constitute the
     Series F Preferred Stock shall be such number as may actually be issued by
     the Corporation, not to exceed a maximum of zero shares.

                                       B.

     The Designation, as amended by item A above, is hereby deleted from the
     Articles of Incorporation.

     Except as hereby amended, the Articles of Incorporation remain and shall
remain in full force and effect.

     3.   The Amendments were adopted by the Corporation's Board of Directors by
unanimous written consent June 12, 2002. There being no Holders of the Series F
Stock, no approval was required or obtained.

                                       1

<PAGE>

     Dated this 18/th/ day of June, 2002.



                                       American Realty Investors, Inc.



                                       By:     /s/ Robert A. Waldman
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Robert A. Waldman, Secretary

                                       2
### §460p–5. Hunting and fishing

The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing on lands and waters under his jurisdiction within the Spruce Knob-Seneca Rocks National Recreation Area in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws. The Secretary may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, or public use and enjoyment, and shall issue regulations after consultation with the Department of Natural Resources of the State of West Virginia.

(Pub. L. 89–207, §6, Sept. 28, 1965, 79 Stat. 844.)
#### § 80.12 Accounting requirements.

Neither the submission of a request for an FCPA Opinion, its pendency, nor the issuance of an FCPA Opinion, shall in any way alter the responsibility of an issuer to comply with the accounting requirements of 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(2) and (3).
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given as a correction in the announcement of the establishment of the NCI-Frederick Advisory Committee, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 15, 2011, 75 FR 14035.                

This FRN is amended to replace the word “Council” used in the second paragraph to the word “Committee”.

Dated: March 16, 2011.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-6742 Filed 3-21-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### §450jj–8. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–355, §1(2), Aug. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 947

Section, act May 17, 1954, ch. 204, §9, as added Aug. 24, 1984, Pub. L. 98–398, title II, §201(a), 98 Stat. 1471, related to approval of development and management plan for East Saint Louis, Illinois, portion of Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, and transmission by Secretary of notice of approval of plan to Congressional committees.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 99896 / April 3, 2024

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-21762

In the Matter of

SALOMON WHITNEY LLC,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER APPOINTING 

TAX ADMINISTRATOR

On May 4, 2022, the Commission issued an Omnibus Order Directing the Engagement of 

Two Tax Administrators for Appointment on a Case-By-Case Basis in Administrative 

Proceedings that Establish Distribution Funds (the “Omnibus Order”).1 The Omnibus Order 

engaged Miller Kaplan Arase LLP and Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP to serve as the 

Commission’s tax administrator (“Tax Administrator”), for selection and appointment on an 

individual case basis, for calendar years 2022 through 2024 in administrative proceedings where 

the distribution fund may incur tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) 

under the Department of the Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

The Director of the Division of Enforcement is authorized to appoint a Tax Administrator 

pursuant to the Omnibus Order.2 The Commission staff has requested the appointment of Miller 

Kaplan Arase LLP as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the Omnibus Order, Miller Kaplan Arase 

LLP is appointed as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding. For the 

Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.3

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 94845 (May 4, 2022). 2

 See Delegation of Authority to Director of the Division of Enforcement, Securities Act Rel. No. 10900 (Dec. 10, 

2020).

3

 17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(21)(ii).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 4 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk Novem ber 4 , 2020

1620 09 ( 5 9 ) (60)

JAMES DUCKWOR TH,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Intervening Plaintiff,

SC: 162009

v COA: 347865

Wayne CC: 14

- 005196

- NF;

15

- 006418

- NF

CHEROKEE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

PROGRESSIVE MARATHON INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee

. _______________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of defendant

- appellee to extend the time

for filing i t s answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRA NTED. The answer

submitted on Octo ber 30 , 2020 , is accepted as timely filed

. On further order of the Chief

Justice, the motion of defendant

- appellant to extend the time for filing its reply is

GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submi tted on or before December

11, 2020.
#### § 63.1 Purpose.

These guidelines set forth procedures to be followed by the Department of Justice to implement Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). (The Orders.)
§ 630.108 Preparation of agreement. ( a ) The State DOT shall prepare a project agreement for each Federal-aid project.
( b ) The State DOT may develop the project agreement in a format acceptable to both the State DOT and the FHWA provided the following are included: ( 1 ) A description of each project location including State and project termini;
( 2 ) The Federal-aid project number;
( 3 ) The work covered by the agreement;
( 4 ) The total project cost and amount of Federal funds under agreement;
( 5 ) The Federal-aid share of eligible project costs expressed as either a pro rata percentage or a lump sum as set forth in § 630.106(f)(1);
( 6 ) A statement that the State accepts and will comply with the agreement provisions set forth in § 630.112;
( 7 ) A statement that the State stipulates that its signature on the project agreement constitutes the making of the certifications set for in § 630.112; and
( 8 ) Signatures of officials from both the State and the FHWA, and the date executed.
( c ) The project agreement should also document, by comment, instances where: ( 1 ) The State is applying amounts of credits from special accounts (such as the 23 U.S.C. 120(j) toll credits, 23 U.S.C. 144(n) off-system bridge credits and 23 U.S.C. 323 land value credits) to cover all or a portion of the normal percent non-Federal share of the project;
( 2 ) The project involves other arrangements affecting Federal funding or non-Federal matching provisions, including tapered match, donations, or use of other Federal agency funds, if known at the time the project agreement is executed; and
( 3 ) The State is claiming finance related costs for bond and other debt instrument financing (such as payments to States under 23 U.S.C. 122).
( d ) The State DOT may use an electronic version of the agreement as provided by the FHWA.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2125-0529)
### §428p–2. Administration of Fort Donelson National Battlefield

The Secretary of the Interior shall administer the Fort Donelson National Battlefield in accordance with sections 428p to 428p–2 of this title and the laws generally applicable to units of the National Park System, including the Act of August 25, 1916 (commonly known as the National Park Service Organic Act; 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),1 and the Act of August 21, 1935 (commonly known as the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).1

(Pub. L. 108–367, §4, Oct. 25, 2004, 118 Stat. 1744.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 428p to 428p–2 of this title, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 108–367, Oct. 25, 2004, 118 Stat. 1743, which enacted this section and sections 428p and 428p–1 of this title, amended section 428k of this title, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 428 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2004 Amendment note set out under section 428 of this title and Tables.

The Act of August 25, 1916 (commonly known as the National Park Service Organic Act; 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), referred to in text, is act Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, 39 Stat. 535, which enacted sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title and provisions set out as a note under section 100101 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs. Sections 1 to 4 of the Act were repealed and restated as section 1865(a) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and section 100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections 100751(a), 100752, 100753, and 102101 of Title 54 by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 4(a)(1), 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3260, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

The Act of August 21, 1935 (commonly known as the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), referred to in text, is act Aug. 21, 1935, ch. 593, 49 Stat. 666, also known as the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which enacted sections 461 to 467 of this title. The Act was repealed and restated as section 1866(a) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and sections 102303 and 102304 and chapter 3201 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs, by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 4(a)(1), 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3260, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

1 See References in Text note below.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7974

DELANO ANTONIO MIDDLETON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOCTOR PARINA, Senior Physician, FCI Estill,

SC; VENANTUS ENEJE, Physicians Assistant, FCI

Estill SC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(CA-04-617-0-26)

Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Delano Antonio Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier

Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

PER CURIAM:

Delano Antonio Middleton appeals the district court’s

order accepting and adopting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge; summarily dismissing his Bivens*

 action based on deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs; and dismissing without

prejudice his claims for medical malpractice and medical negligence

for failure to comply with the prerequisites for pursuing these

claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court

referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that

relief be denied and advised Middleton that failure to timely file

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of

a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this

warning, Middleton failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Middleton has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
- 3 -

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
#### § 630.1002 Purpose.

Work zones directly impact the safety and mobility of road users and highway workers. These safety and mobility impacts are exacerbated by an aging highway infrastructure and growing congestion in many locations. Addressing these safety and mobility issues requires considerations that start early in project development and continue through project completion. Part 6 of the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)[1] sets forth basic principles and prescribes standards for the design, application, installation, and maintenance of traffic control devices for highway and street construction, maintenance operation, and utility work. In addition to the provisions in the MUTCD, there are other actions that could be taken to further help mitigate the safety and mobility impacts of work zones. This subpart establishes requirements and provides guidance for systematically addressing the safety and mobility impacts of work zones, and developing strategies to help manage these impacts on all Federal-aid highway projects.

###### Footnotes -
  630.1002

[1] The MUTCD is approved by the FHWA and recognized as the national standard for traffic control on all public roads. It is incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations at 23 CFR part 655. It is available on the FHWA's Web site at *http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov* and is available for inspection and copying at the FHWA Washington, DC Headquarters and all FHWA Division Offices as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7.
### §460gg–4. Administration, protection, and development

Except as otherwise provided in section 460gg–1 of this title and section 3 of this Act, and subject to the provisions of section 460gg–7 of this title, the Secretary shall administer the recreation area in accordance with the laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the national forests for public outdoor recreation in a manner compatible with the following objectives:

(1) the maintenance and protection of the freeflowing nature of the rivers within the recreation area;

(2) conservation of scenic, wilderness, cultural, scientific, and other values contributing to the public benefit;

(3) preservation, especially in the area generally known as Hells Canyon, of all features and peculiarities believed to be biologically unique including, but not limited to, rare and endemic plant species, rare combinations of aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric habitats, and the rare combinations of outstanding and diverse ecosystems and parts of ecosystems associated therewith;

(4) protection and maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat;

(5) protection of archeological and paleontologic sites and interpretation of these sites for the public benefit and knowledge insofar as it is compatible with protection;

(6) preservation and restoration of historic sites associated with and typifying the economic and social history of the region and the American West; and

(7) such management, utilization, and disposal of natural resources on federally owned lands, including, but not limited to, timber harvesting by selective cutting, mining, and grazing and the continuation of such existing uses and developments as are compatible with the provisions of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 94–199, §7, Dec. 31, 1975, 89 Stat. 1118.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 3 of this Act, referred to in text, is section 3 of Pub. L. 94–199. Subsec. (a) of section 3 added pars. (11) and (12) of section 1274(a) of this title, relating to components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. Subsec. (b) of section 3, relating to the administration of those segments of the Snake and Rapid Rivers designated as wild or scenic river areas, is set out as a note under section 1274 of this title.
#### Rorie *v.*Rorie.

February 18, 1910.

Alimony. Before Judge Wright. Haralson superior court.

August 22, 1908.

*B. 8. Griffith,*for plaintiff.

*James Beall*and *Walter Matthews,*for defendant.

Atkinson, J.

In a suit for permanent alimony, where there was no divorce, it appeared that the wife was not living with the husband at the commencement of the action and had not lived with him during the seven years immediately preceding. Though conflicting, the evidence as a whole authorized the jury to find that the wife voluntarily left the home of the husband without sufficient cause, and remained away without his consent. A verdict was against the grant of alimony in any amount, and the judge, on motion based on general grounds, refused a new trial. *Held,*that a verdict in favor of the wife was not demanded by the evidence, and that the discretion of the trial judge in refusing to grant a new trial will- not bé disturbed. Civil Code, § 2404. .See also, in this connection, *George*v. *George,*130 *Ga.*608 (61 S. E. 401).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*