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

Docket No. 43974

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

MITCHELL J. McROBERTS ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 639

Filed: August 17, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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, Twin Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker , District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Mitchell J. McRoberts was found guilty of felony injury to a child, Idaho Code § 18

- 1501(1). The district court sentenced McRoberts to a unified t erm of ten years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years, suspended the sentence, and placed McRoberts on
supervised probation for five years. McRoberts subsequently violated his probation but was
continued on probation. Following a second p robation violation, the district court revoked
McRoberts’ probation, ordered execution of the underlying sentence, and retained jurisdiction.
Upon McRoberts’ completion of the retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended
McRoberts’ sentence and pla ced him on supervised probation. McRoberts again violated the2

terms of his probation, and the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of a reduced sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year. McRoberts

filed an untimely I daho C riminal R ule 35 motion for reduction of sentence , which the district

court denied. McRoberts appeals.
Idaho Criminal Rule 35 provides that a district court has discretion to consider and act
upon a motion filed within fourteen days of the order revoking probation . The filing limitations
provided by Rule 35 are a jurisdictional limit on the authority of the court to consider the motion
and, unless filed within the period, a district court lacks jurisdiction to grant any relief. State v.

Sutton , 113 Idaho 832, 833, 748 P.2d 416, 417 (Ct. App. 1987). In this case, McRoberts
acknowledges that his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence was untimely. Because

McRoberts’ Rule 35 motion was not filed within the fourteen

- day limitati on provided by the
rule, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, we do not address the

merits of McRoberts’ Rule 35 motion. Therefore, the district court’s order denying McRobert s ’

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of November 2, 1996, and the condensed
consolidated statement of income for the 39 weeks ended November 2, 1996, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                          75,600
<SECURITIES>                                    82,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    251,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               421,200
<PP&E>                                         410,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                 220,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 709,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,200
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   709,000
<SALES>                                        782,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               782,100
<CGS>                                          573,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  235,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (54,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (54,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.45)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES
                  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                        Washington, DC   20549

                              FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)

XX  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
--- ACT OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2009

    TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
--- ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM _______ TO ______.

    Commission file number        000-27503
                             ____________________

                      DYNASIL CORPORATION OF AMERICA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
  (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

          Delaware                            22-1734088
        --------------             -------------------------------
  (State or other jurisdiction        (IRS Employer Identification No.)
     of incorporation)

               385 Cooper Road, West Berlin, New Jersey, 08091
        ----------------------------------------------------------
                 (Address of principal executive offices)

                             (856) 767-4600
            --------------------------------------------------
            (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act during
the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days)  XX Yes     No
                                            ----    ----


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer,
an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.

     Large accelerated filer                  Accelerated filer
                             ------                                     -----
     Non-accelerated filer                    Smaller reporting company  XX
                             ------                                     ------


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant
is a shell company                                 Yes     XX No
                                                   ----    -----


The Company had 11,377,325 shares of common stock, par value $.0005 per share,
outstanding as of August 5, 2009.

                                               1
<PAGE>

                           EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Registrant is filing this Form 10-K/A to correct the alignment of
checked boxes page 1 of the originally filed form to make clear that
the Registrant is NOT a shell company within the meaning of
Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00847-CR

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 8, 2020

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the presiding 

judge of the San Antonio Municipal Court to (1) vacate his December 4, 2019 instruction to the 

venire panel, and (2) vacate his December 4, 2019 instruction of the law in the jury charge.

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is limited to writs against a district court judge or 

county court judge in our district and all writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T 

CODE § 22.221(a), (b). We do not have authority to issue writs of mandamus against a municipal 

court judge unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Chang, 176 S.W.3d 451, 452 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see also In re Gomez, 04-

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. B1661841.01, B1661842.01, B1661843.01, styled The State of Texas v. 

Jack Edward Miller, pending in the Municipal Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Al Tavera presiding.
04-19-00847-CR

- 2 -

19-00019-CR, 2019 WL 286085, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 23, 2019, orig. proceeding) 

(per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding same).

Relator does not contend that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce this court’s 

jurisdiction; therefore, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
# C_2011340EN.01003301.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Fouwels and Others v Commission

(Case F-8/05 REV)

(Staff case - Procedure - Application for revision - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Decision of the Tribunal - Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance - No binding effect - Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)

2011/C 340/64

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Martine Fouwels and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for revision by the applicant against the Order of the First Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010, in Joined Cases F-8/05 and F-10/05.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants for revision are ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants for revision are ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which has intervened in the action for revision, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which has intervened in the action for revision, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---
§ 21.450 What are the requirements for a termination of a grants officer's or agreements officer's appointment? A termination of a grants officer's or agreements officer's authority: ( a ) Must be in writing, unless the written statement of appointment provides for automatic termination.
( b ) May not be retroactive.
( c ) May be integrated into a written termination of the individual's appointment as a contracting officer, as appropriate.
§ 196.225 Educational institutions eligible to submit transition plans. ( a ) *Application.* This section applies to each educational institution to which §§ 196.300 through 196.310 apply that: ( 1 ) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1972; or
( 2 ) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1965, but thereafter admitted, as regular students, students of the sex not admitted prior to June 23, 1965.
( b ) *Provision for transition plans.* An educational institution to which this section applies shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in admission or recruitment in violation of §§ 196.300 through 196.310.
### §6327. Absence in connection with serving as a bone-marrow or organ donor

(a) An employee in or under an Executive agency is entitled to leave without loss of or reduction in pay, leave to which otherwise entitled, credit for time or service, or performance or efficiency rating, for the time necessary to permit such employee to serve as a bone-marrow or organ donor.

(b) An employee may, in any calendar year, use—

(1) not to exceed 7 days of leave under this section to serve as a bone-marrow donor; and

(2) not to exceed 30 days of leave under this section to serve as an organ donor.

(c) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations for the administration of this section.

(Added Pub. L. 103–329, title VI, §629(a)(1), Sept. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 2423; amended Pub. L. 106–56, §1(b), Sept. 24, 1999, 113 Stat. 407.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Another section 6327 was renumbered section 6328 of this title.

#### Amendments

1999—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–56 amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: "Not to exceed 7 days of leave may be used under this section by an employee in a calendar year."
#### Hoffman Motor Car Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Jaguar Cars Ltd., Defendant, and Jaguar Cars, North American Corporation, Respondent.

Order, entered on November 23, 1960, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Mr. Justice McGivern at Special Term, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      937
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   970
<PP&E>                                           1,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              379
<BONDS>                                            873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        350
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,747
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   235
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  50
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     95
<INCOME-TAX>                                        37
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 58
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        58
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>Not separately identified in the consolidated financial statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
</FN>


</TABLE>
### §321q. Coordination of Department of Homeland Security efforts related to food, agriculture, and veterinary defense against terrorism

#### (a) Program required

The Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary for the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, shall carry out a program to coordinate the Department's efforts related to defending the food, agriculture, and veterinary systems of the United States against terrorism and other high-consequence events that pose a high risk to homeland security.

#### (b) Program elements

The coordination program required by subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Providing oversight and management of the Department's responsibilities pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9–Defense of United States Agriculture and Food.

(2) Providing oversight and integration of the Department's activities related to veterinary public health, food defense, and agricultural security.

(3) Leading the Department's policy initiatives relating to food, animal, and agricultural incidents, and the impact of such incidents on animal and public health.

(4) Leading the Department's policy initiatives relating to overall domestic preparedness for and collective response to agricultural terrorism.

(5) Coordinating with other Department components, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, as appropriate, on activities related to food and agriculture security and screening procedures for domestic and imported products.

(6) Coordinating with appropriate Federal departments and agencies.

(7) Other activities as determined necessary by the Secretary.

#### (c) Rule of construction

Nothing in this section may be construed as altering or superseding the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title V, §528, as added Pub. L. 115–43, §2(a), June 30, 2017, 131 Stat. 884; amended Pub. L. 115–387, §2(f)(5), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5168.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–387 substituted "the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office," for "Health Affairs,".
#### § 917.21 Approval of Kentucky abandoned mine land reclamation plan amendments.

(a) The Kentucky Amendment, submitted to OSM on December 8, 1982, is approved. You may receive a copy from:

(1) Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division of Abandoned Lands, 618 Teton Trail, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601; or

(2) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Lexington Field Office, 2675 Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40503-2922.

(b) The Kentucky Abandoned Mine Reclamation Amendment, submitted to OSM on March 25, 1985, is approved. Copies may be obtained at the addresses listed in paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to OSM, the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register and the State citations or a brief description of each amendment. The amendments in this table are listed in order of the date of final publication in the Federal Register.

| Original amendment submission date | Date of final publication | Citation/description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| June 24, 1992 | December 17, 1992 | Chapter 3—Goals and Obligations, Chapter 15—Maps of Eligible Lands and Waters. |
| May 5, 1994 | July 29, 1994 | Chapter 5—Coordination with Ramp, Indian, and Other Reclamation Programs. |

(d) The Kentucky Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan amendment, submitted to OSM on April 29, 2002, is approved with the following exceptions. The word “or,” which appears at the end of paragraph 1 of the section entitled “Lands for Permanent Facilities,” is not approved. We are approving the State of Kentucky's incorporation by reference of the Federal AML Enhancement Rule into their regulations. This approval is subject to the restrictions placed upon the Federal regulation by the court in *Kentucky Resources Council* v. *Norton,* 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 11365, Slip. Op. at 5. (D.C. Cir. May 30, 2002) The “Reclamation Agreements” provision at the end of Chapter 12 only applies to AML reclamation projects authorized through the Federal AML grant process. Copies may be obtained at the address listed in (a)(2) of this section for OSM or the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division of Abandoned Mine Lands, 2521 Old Lawrenceburg Road, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.

(e) The Kentucky AMLR Plan amendment submitted on April 23, 2007, and consisting of revisions to KRS Chapter 350 that correspond to changes to the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 resulting from the Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, is approved.

[62 FR 9943, Mar. 5, 1997, as amended at 68 FR 65843, Nov. 24, 2003; 72 FR 59479, Oct. 22, 2007]