alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42453

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

MATTHEW EDWARD McGRAW ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 495

Filed: May 20, 2015

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Melissa Moody , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years indeterminate for grand theft, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Matthew Edward McGraw was found guilty of grand theft

, Idaho Code § § 18

- 2403(1),

18

- 2407(1)(b), 18

- 2409

, and misdemeanor charges of: providing false information to law
enforcement, I.C. § 18

- 5412(2); illegal consumption of alcohol, I.C. § 23

- 949 ; and malicious
injury to property, I.C. § 18

- 7001(1)

. The district court sentenced McGraw to an indeterminate
fourteen years for grand theft and concurrent sentences with credit for time served on each of the
misdemeanor charges

. McGraw a ppeals asserting that the district court abused i t s discretion by
imposing an excessive sentence and by declining to place him on probation

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

factors to be conside red 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
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these st andards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, McGraw ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### FULTON, Respondent, v. VOTH et ux., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

Action by Robert M. Fulton against Richard C. Voth and wife. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

William C. Arnold, for appellants. Herbert M. Johnston, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

Through the intervention of the plaintiff a contract was made for the sale and purchase of certain property belonging to one of the defendants. Upon the execution of that contract the plaintiff demanded payment of his commission. The professing purchaser did not complete his contract, or even make the first substantial payment, to be made shortly after the first relatively small down payment. While the testimony of the defendants was direct and explicit as to an understanding that the commissions were to be paid upon the completion of the sale, and that the execution of the contract was accompanied by a separate oral agreement, and the plaintiff’s own testimony in contradiction was vacillating and hardly plausible, the learned justice followed the provisions rec*1127ognizing the broker and agreeing to pay his commissions, put in the contract itself upon the form furnished by one of the title companies. Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent. All concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32

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 Quarterly Report of the Erie Family Life Insurance
Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Jeffrey A. Ludrof, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and
Philip A. Garcia, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations
of the Company.

/s/ Jeffrey A. Ludrof
Jeffrey A. Ludrof
President & Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Philip A. Garcia
Philip A. Garcia
Executive VP & Chief Financial Officer

July 24, 2003

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 Erie Family Life Insurance Company and will be retained by Erie
Family Life Insurance Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 1605.59 Signing official papers.

Official papers issued by a local board may be signed by any member of the board or compensated employee of the area office, or any compensated employee of the Selective Service System whose official duties require him to perform administrative duties at the area office except when otherwise prescribed by the Director of Selective Service.
### §1339b. Wheat diversion programs; credits in establishment of State, county and farm acreage allotments for wheat

In the establishment of State, county, and farm acreage allotments for wheat under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended [7 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.], the acreage which is determined under regulations of the Secretary to have been diverted from the production of wheat under the special programs formulated pursuant to section 307 of this Act, section 339 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended [7 U.S.C. 1339], and section 124 of the Agricultural Act of 1961, shall be credited to the State, county, and farm as though such acreage had actually been devoted to the production of wheat.

(Pub. L. 87–703, title III, §327, Sept. 27, 1962, 76 Stat. 631.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, referred to in text, is act Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, 52 Stat. 31, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1281 of this title and Tables.

Section 307 of this Act and section 124 of the Agricultural Act of 1961, referred to in text, are, respectively, section 307 of Pub. L. 87–703 and section 124 of Pub. L. 87–128, which were formerly set out as notes under section 1334 of this title.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, and not as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 which comprises this chapter.
**Exhibit  12.2**

I, Tal Raz, certify that:

|  | 1.
I have reviewed this amendment to annual report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd.; and
2.
Based on my knowledge, this amendment to 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 annual report. 
 

Date:****March 8**,** 2004

 

 

 

/s/ Tal Raz

 

 

Tal RazVice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

 

  |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Smith, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 303]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered May 24, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal *774brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

This Court may determine that a verdict is against the weight of the evidence by “draw[ing] inferences contrary to those implicitly drawn by the jury, and conclude that while legally valid, the verdict should nevertheless be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence” *(People v Acosta,*80 NY2d 665, 672 [1993]; *see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Although the defendant points to his own testimony in support of his argument that he proved the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance, there was testimony in the record to demonstrate otherwise. Resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; *People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero, supra).*

The defendant contends that his statements to the police should have been suppressed because detectives continued to interview him after he requested to speak to an attorney. The defendant’s testimony at the *Huntley*hearing *(see People v Huntley,*15 NY2d 72 [1965]) was contradicted, however, by the testimony of the detectives who interviewed him, and the hearing court credited the testimony of the police witnesses. “Issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court, and its findings should be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous” *(People v Gonzalez,*246 AD2d 555 [1998]; *see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). We find no basis to overturn the hearing court’s determination. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Lifson, JJ., concur.
NUMBER 13-22-00282-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

SALINAS FUNERAL HOME, INC.

AND ORLANDO ESTRADA OCHOA D/B/A

“IMMACULATE TRANSPORT SERVICES”, Appellants,

v.

MARIBEL SALINAS AND 

EDITH SALINAS, Appellees.

 

On appeal from the 206th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellants Salinas Funeral Home, Inc. and Orlando Estrada Ochoa d/b/a 

“Immaculate Transport Services” perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 

206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-3701-20-D. This appeal 
2

was abated by the Court on July 25, 2022. This cause is now before the Court on the 

parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal filed pursuant to a settlement agreement.

Accordingly, this case is hereby reinstated. 

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the parties’ joint motion 

to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a). The parties’ joint motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

dismissed. Costs are taxed against the party incurring same. Having dismissed the 

appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our 

mandate will issue forthwith. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

22nd day of September, 2022.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                      14,122,000
<SECURITIES>                                 9,250,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,499,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   867,000
<INVENTORY>                                 68,923,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           108,306,000
<PP&E>                                     270,385,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             153,684,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             252,761,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       93,489,000
<BONDS>                                    100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       115,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,359,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               252,761,000
<SALES>                                    239,937,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           239,937,000
<CGS>                                      177,950,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              177,950,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,964,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,788,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,788,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,788,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

<S>                                             <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           Year                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Jan-30-2000          Jan-28-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          Feb-01-1999          May-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            Jan-30-2000          Jul-30-2000
<CASH>                                       14,002               6,688
<SECURITIES>                                      0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 2,370               2,285
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0                   0
<INVENTORY>                                 121,863             128,622
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            138,702             138,179
<PP&E>                                       73,648              76,194
<DEPRECIATION>                              (39,729)            (42,365)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              178,179             177,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        42,841              42,804
<BONDS>                                           0                   0
<COMMON>                                          1                   1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                       0                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                   90,217              89,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                178,179             177,208
<SALES>                                     380,504              99,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            380,504              99,143
<CGS>                                       252,691              66,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               252,691              66,012
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            3,672                 765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              10,577               2,971
<INCOME-TAX>                                  4,019               1,158
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           6,558               1,813
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                  6,558               1,813
<EPS-BASIC>                                  1.32                 .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.32                 .40


</TABLE>
#### ELDRIDGE, Respondent, v. CORNING, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 30, 1903.)

Action by George I. Eldridge against Anna Corning.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
### §744. Establishment of national preparedness system

#### (a) Establishment

The President, acting through the Administrator, shall develop a national preparedness system to enable the Nation to meet the national preparedness goal.

#### (b) Components

The national preparedness system shall include the following components:

(1) Target capabilities and preparedness priorities.

(2) Equipment and training standards.

(3) Training and exercises.

(4) Comprehensive assessment system.

(5) Remedial action management program.

(6) Federal response capability inventory.

(7) Reporting requirements.

(8) Federal preparedness.

#### (c) National planning scenarios

The national preparedness system may include national planning scenarios.

(Pub. L. 109–295, title VI, §644, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1425.)
#### Maryland Casualty Company, as Subrogee of John Pollicino and another, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 59470.)

—Appeal from a judgment, entered October 27, 1976, upon a decision of the Court of Claims, which dismissed the claim. During the trial of a Supreme Court action commenced to recover damages arising out of an automobile accident, claimant and its subrogors reached a settlement with the plaintiff therein. After making payment, claimant filed a claim against the State in the Court of Claims, seeking contribution pursuant to CPLR 1401 *et seq.*That court, however, held that subdivision (c) of section 15-108 of the General Obligations Law barred the claim. This appeal ensued. Subdivision (c) of section 15-108 provides without qualification that "A tortfeasor who has obtained his own release from liability shall not be entitled to contribution from any person.” Nevertheless, claimant argues that despite the settlement of its liability in the prior Supreme Court action, it would be unreasonable to subject its claim to subdivision (c) of section 15-108 in the Court of Claims because the State enjoys immunity from being impleaded into the Supreme Court. We disagree. "Apparently the Legislature felt that surrender of the right to contribution is a small price to ask of a defendant who is intent on avoiding litigation” *(Rock v Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co.,*39 NY2d 34, 41). Thus, since claimant reached a settlement in the Supreme Court action before judgment, subdivision (c) of section 15-108 bars its claim herein (see *Rock v Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co., supra,*p 41; cf. *State of New York v County of Sullivan,*43 NY2d 815). We have examined the other contentions raised by claimant and find them to be without merit. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur. [88 Misc 2d 370.]
### DIVISION B—ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS
EXHIBIT 32

                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of EDO Corporation, a New York corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                   /s/ JAMES M. SMITH
Dated: May 4, 2007                 --------------------------
                                   Name:  James M. Smith
                                   Title: Chairman, President and
                                          Chief Executive Officer

                                   /s/ FREDERIC B. BASSETT
                                   -----------------------
Dated: May 4, 2007                 Name:   Frederic B. Bassett
                                   Title:  Senior Vice President-Finance,
                                           Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                          2,162,600
<SECURITIES>                            0         
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,090,300          
<ALLOWANCES>                     (463,500)        
<INVENTORY>                       379,000          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                3,226,800     
<PP&E>                          1,597,900          
<DEPRECIATION>                   (861,300)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  4,639,800            
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             655,700     
<BONDS>                                 0          
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0         
<PREFERRED>                         3,100          
<COMMON>                           22,800      
<OTHER-SE>                      3,832,800         
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    4,639,800             
<SALES>                         3,663,900    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,899,700           
<CGS>                           3,374,800    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   6,539,400          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 14,300       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (2,654,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                      500,800              
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (3,154,800)                
<DISCONTINUED>                          0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0         
<CHANGES>                               0          
<NET-INCOME>                   (3,154,800)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (1.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (1.39) 
        


</TABLE>