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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46178

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

THOMAS ROBERT PETERSEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: January 16, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Gooding County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge. 

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge.

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Thomas Robert Petersen pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder, I.C. § 18-

4003(d). The district court imposed a determinate life sentence for each charge. Petersen filed 

an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for correction of an illegal sentence, asserting that his 

sentence was illegal because he was denied the right to have counsel present at his pre-sentence 

investigation interview; his attorney did not tell him that he could refuse to participate in his presentence investigation interview; significant changes occurred to his brain as he grew older, 

which could be detected with an MRI; and his trial attorney told him that a life sentence meant a 

thirty-year sentence. The district court denied Petersen’s motion, finding that Petersen’s 

sentence was not illegal on the face of the record. Petersen appeals.
2

In State v. Clements, 148 Idaho 82, 87, 218 P.3d 1143, 1148 (2009), the Idaho Supreme 

Court held that the term “illegal sentence” under Rule 35 is narrowly interpreted as a sentence 

that is illegal from the face of the record, i.e., does not involve significant questions of fact or 

require an evidentiary hearing. Rule 35 is a “narrow rule,” and because an illegal sentence may 

be corrected at any time, the authority conferred by Rule 35 should be limited to uphold the 

finality of judgments. State v. Farwell, 144 Idaho 732, 735, 170 P.3d 397, 400 (2007). Idaho 

Criminal Rule 35 is not a vehicle designed to reexamine the facts underlying the case to 

determine whether a sentence is illegal; rather, the rule only applies to a narrow category of cases 

in which the sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law or where new 

evidence tends to show that the original sentence was excessive. Clements, 148 Idaho at 87, 218 

P.3d at 1148. 

The record supports the district court’s finding that Petersen’s sentence was not illegal. 

Therefore, the district court properly denied Petersen’s motion. Accordingly, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown and the district court’s order denying Petersen’s Rule 35 

motion is affirmed.
This .zip file contains graphic files (in .png format) of each chart and graph in the Economic Research Service report "Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American 
Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas" EIB-131, published in December 2014. The content and context of these files is as of the publication date of the report. After time, 
the material may not reflect the current ERS program of work, may be outdated, and/or superseded, so please visit the website to obtain the latest information: 
www.ers.usda.gov. Any reuse of these images should include attribution to "Economic Research Service/USDA."

The following inventory lists each of the files in this folder.


File name			Description       
(Fig01.png)			Figure 1 - American Indian reservations in Arizona   
(Fig02.png)			Figure 2 - U.S. tribal areas and FDPIR sites
(Fig03.png)			Figure 3 - Share of individuals and households more than 1 mile from a supermarket 
(Fig04.png)			Figure 4 - Access distance to all super markets by population percentiles: U.S. and tribal area individuals
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 518

 442

 512

 615

 656

 565

 634

 885

 497

 342

 288

 283

 281

 288

 287

 290

 390

 371

 470

 465

 571

 631

 618

 522

 559

 432

 397

 345

 371

 479

 167

 186

 191

 197

 194

 190

 185

 186

 185

 171

 166

 165

 177

 178

 179

 182

 179

 179

 189

 195

 188

 186

 191

 198

 187

 190

 185

 183

 178

 172

 304

 290

 301

 336

 341

 321

 336

 423

 322

 271

 239

 231

 227

 224

 219

 225

 240

 245

 256

 263

 297

 348

 321

 294

 309

 285

 266

 253

 255

 278

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 9, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Thomas E. Carlile, 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 accompanying Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 Boise Cascade Company at the dates and for the periods indicated in the Report.


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 Boise Cascade Company and will be retained by Boise Cascade Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.





/s/ THOMAS E. CARLILE


Thomas E. Carlile


Chief Executive Officer


Apr il 30, 2013





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Richard F. Welch, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of the managing general partner,
Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc. (the Managing General Partner), of Prudential-Bache/Watson & Taylor, Ltd.-2 (the Partnership), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Partnerships Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Richard F. Welch                                                                                                                   
|Richard F. Welch Chairman of the Board of Directors,President and Chief Executive Officerof the Managing General Partner November 13,
2006
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4345 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4345

To expand the eligibility of individuals from Micronesia, the Marshall 
Islands, and Palau for participation in National Service Programs, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2016

Ms. Bordallo (for herself, Ms. Gabbard, and Mr. Sablan) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To expand the eligibility of individuals from Micronesia, the Marshall 
Islands, and Palau for participation in National Service Programs, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``National Community Service 
Improvement Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAM 
              PARTICIPANTS.

    Section 137(a)(5) of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 
(42 U.S.C. 12591(a)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(5) is a citizen or national of the United States or 
        lawful permanent resident alien of the United States, or is a 
        citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of 
        the Marshall Islands, or Palau and admitted to the United 
        States as a nonimmigrant under the terms of the applicable 
        nation's Compact of Free Association with the United States.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall be effective for any 
participant in a program under the National and Community Service Act 
of 1990 selected after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
SR20

T34R19E

T33R19E

T34R20E

T33R20E

T31R20E

T32R19E T32R20E

T30R20E

T31R19E

T34R21E

T33R21E

T33R18E

T34R18E

T32R21E

T31R21E

T32R18E

T30R21E

T35R19E T35R20E

T30R19E

T35R18E

T35R21E

Gilbert Trailhead

Foggy Dew Trailhead

War Creek Trailhead

Chickadee Trailhead

Wolf Creek Trailhead

Slate Creek Trailhead

Eagle Creek Trailhead

Crater Creek Trailhead

Scatter Creek Trailhead

Williams Creek Trailhead

West Fork Buttermilk Trailhead

Legend

Trailhead

LSR

Roads

Trails

Hwy

River

Management Areas

5

8

10

14

17

25

26

This product is produced from information prepared by USDA, Forest Service, or from other suppliers.

The Forest Service can not assure the reliability or suitability of this information for a particular purpose.

The data and product accuracy may vary due to compilations from various sources, including modeling

This information may be used, corrected, or otherwise modified without notification.

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer

Map 1-9.

1:118,861

NAD 1983 Datum; Projected in USFS R6 Albers

Pack and Saddle Stock Outfitter-Guide

Special Use Permit Issuance DEIS

Map 1-9. Middle Methow Management

Areas, Trails and Trailheads ---------------------------------------------------------------

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest

Methow Valley Ranger District

Winthrop, Washington

0 1,950 3,900 7,800 11,700 Feet

0 415 830 1,660 2,490 Meters
§ 684.300 Who is eligible to receive services under the Indian and Native American program? ( a ) A person is eligible to receive services under the INA program if that person is: ( 1 ) An Indian, as determined by a policy of the INA program grantee. The grantee's definition must at least include anyone who is a member of a Federally-recognized tribe; or
( 2 ) An Alaska Native, as defined in WIOA sec. 166(b)(1); or
( 3 ) A Native Hawaiian, as defined in WIOA sec. 166(b)(3).
( b ) The person also must be any one of the following: ( 1 ) Unemployed; or
( 2 ) Underemployed, as defined in § 684.130; or
( 3 ) A low-income individual, as defined in sec. 3(36) of WIOA; or
( 4 ) The recipient of a bona fide lay-off notice which has taken effect in the last 6 months or will take effect in the following 6-month period, who is unlikely to return to a previous industry or occupation, and who is in need of retraining for either employment with another employer or for job retention with the current employer; or
( 5 ) An individual who is employed, but is determined by the grantee to be in need of employment and training services to obtain or retain employment that allows for self-sufficiency.
( c ) If applicable, male applicants also must register or be registered for the Selective Service.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Christine West, Chief Financial Officer of Portal Resources Ltd. (the Company) do hereby 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.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the Company.





Date: January 15, 2008



/s/  Christine West

Christine West,

Chief Financial Officer













#
489 P.2d 1178

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Braulio RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9302.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Oct. 22, 1971.

Leon Karelitz, Las Vegas, for defendant-appellant.

David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Dunigan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

OMAN, Justice.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 93 [§ 21-1-1 (93), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, 1970)] without granting an evidentiary hearing thereon. In order to prevail under his first point relied upon for reversal, he concedes we must reconsider and overrule our opinion in State v. Fines, 78 N.M. 737, 437 P.2d 1006 (1968), in which we held the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence is not an issue reviewable under Rule 93, if the circumstances of the search and seizure were fully known to defendant at the time of trial.

Our opinion in State v. Fines, supra, has been followed in a number of decisions by this court and by the New Mexico Court of Appeals, and we are not now inclined to overrule it.

Under his second point defendant contends: (1) he could not properly be tried, convicted and sentenced under an information charging him with first degree murder ; (2) he was denied a speedy trial; (3) a statement used against him was involuntarily obtained; (4) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, and (5) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

His first contention is not sustainable under New Mexico law. State v. Cochran, 79 N.M. 640, 447 P.2d 520 (1968); State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982 (1967).

He must fail in his second contention because he did not ask for a-speedy trial and he raised no question concerning the same before trial. Patterson v. State, 81 N.M. 210, 465 P.2d 93 (Ct.App.1970).

The record conclusively supports the finding of the trial court that the statement was voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly made by defendant after he had *181received all admonitions required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Thus, his third contention is without merit.

His fourth contention is likewise without merit since the record affirmatively shows his trial was not a sham, a farce or a mockery. State v. Ramirez, 81 N.M. 150, 464 P.2d 569 (Ct.App.1970).

His final contention has already been ruled upon adversely to him. State v. Rodriguez, 81 N.M. 503, 469 P.2d 148 (1970).

The order denying the motion should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

STEPHENSON and MONTOYA, JJ., concur.
June 2024

STORAGE ACRE-FEET COMPUTED* RELEASE - C.F.S. EVAPORATION PRECIP

DAY ELEV IN LAKE CHANGE INFLOW C.F.S. PUTAH 

SOUTH

PUTAH 

CREEK

C.F.S. INCHES INCHES

1

2

TOTALS

ACRE-FEET 0 0 0 0

Comments: *Computed inflow is the sum of change in storage, releases and evaporation.

Release (ACRE-FEET)

Putah South Canal 0

Putah Creek 0

Total 0

Precipitation

This month =

October 01, 2023 To date = 23.87

SUMMARY

Historical Archive and Report Database

Lake Solano Daily Operations

Run Date: 6/3/2024
#### § 498.110 Failure to request a hearing.

If the respondent does not request a hearing within the time prescribed by § 498.109(a), the Office of the Inspector General may seek the proposed penalty and assessment, as applicable, or any less severe penalty and assessment. The Office of the Inspector General shall notify the respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, of any penalty and assessment, as applicable, that has been imposed and of the means by which the respondent may satisfy the amount owed.

[61 FR 18080, Apr. 24, 1996]
Exhibit 99.1

[PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LOGO]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                                   PricewaterhouseCoopers Center
                                                   300 Madison Avenue
                                                   New York NY 10017
                                                   Telephone (646) 471 3000
                                                   Facsimile (813) 286 6000

                        Report of Independent Accountants

To the Board of Directors and Stockholder
of GMAC Mortgage Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion about GMAC Mortgage Corporation and its
subsidiaries (the "Company") compliance with the minimum servicing standards
identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP") as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2005 included in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit
I). Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was performed in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum
servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 2005 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 21, 2006
§ 683.740 What is the procedure to handle a recipient of title I Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funds' request for advance approval of contemplated corrective actions? ( a ) The recipient may request advance approval from the Grant Officer for contemplated corrective actions, including debt collection actions, which the recipient plans to initiate or to forego. The recipient's request must include a description and an assessment of all actions taken to collect the misspent funds.
( b ) Based on the recipient's request, the Grant Officer may determine that the recipient may forego certain debt collection actions against a subrecipient when: ( 1 ) The subrecipient meets the criteria set forth in WIOA sec. 184(d)(2);
( 2 ) The misexpenditure of funds: ( i ) Was not made by that subrecipient but by an entity that received WIOA funds from that subrecipient;
( ii ) Was not a violation of WIOA sec. 184(d)(1), did not constitute fraud, or failure to disclose, in a timely manner, all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award; or
( iii ) If fraud did exist: ( A ) It was perpetrated against the subrecipient;
( B ) The subrecipient discovered, investigated, reported, and cooperated in any prosecution of the perpetrator of the fraud; and
( C ) After aggressive debt collection action, it has been documented that further attempts at debt collection from the perpetrator of the fraud would be inappropriate or futile;
( 3 ) A determination which disallows the misexpenditure and establishes a debt has been issued at the appropriate level; and,
( 4 ) Further debt collection action by that subrecipient or the recipient would be either inappropriate or futile.