alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18

- 0263 Filed August 15, 2018

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. MICHAEL ALEXANDER LAJEUNESSE , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg , Judge.

Michael La Jeunesse challenges his restitution plan of payment.
AFFIRMED.

Patrick W. O'Bryan of O’Bryan Law Firm , Des Moines , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J. , and Bower and McDonald, JJ.2

McDONALD , Judge

. Michael LaJeunesse was convicted of attempted murder and willful injury and sentenced to a term of incarceration not to exceed thirty

- five years. This court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See State v. LaJeunesse , No. 17

- 0507, 2018 WL 1099024, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. F eb. 21, 2018). This appeal arises out of LaJeunesse’s challenge to the district court’s order on restitution. Lajeunesse was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $11,234.70. Pursuant to a restitution plan of payment, Lajeunesse was to pay twenty percent of all of credits to his institutional account to satisfy his restitution obligation . LaJeunesse challenged the restitution plan of payment. Following a restitution hearing, the district court ordered the amount of restitution remain the same but modified the restitution plan of payment by reduc ing the amount to be withheld from LaJeunesse’s institutional account from twenty perc ent to fifteen percent. On appeal, LaJeunesse contends the district court erred in failing to make a finding that LaJeu nesse had the reasonable ability to pay restitution. We conclude LaJeunesse’s claim is without merit. Implicit in the district court’s reduction of withholding from LaJenuesse’s institutional account is the finding that LaJenuesse had the reasonable abi lity to pay the restitution ordered. See State v. Klawonn , 688 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Iowa 2004) (setting forth standard of review); State v. Van Hoff , 415 N.W.2d 657, 649 (Iowa 1987) (“A determination of reasonableness, especially in a case of long

- term incarc eration, is more appropriately based on the inmate ’ s ability to pay the current installments than his ability to ultimately pay the total amount due.”); Clark v. State , No. 15

- 1280, 2017 WL 2461410, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 7, 2017) (holding the defendant had the3

reasonable ability to pay when payment was capped at twenty percent of the offender’s institutional account credits). We affirm the district court’s order without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a) and (e).
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATE

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 Annual Report of Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John D. Stanton, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ John D. StantonJohn D. StantonPrincipal Financial OfficerApril 16, 2010




28
### §101701. Challenge cost-share agreement authority

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) Challenge cost-share agreement.—The term "challenge cost-share agreement" means any agreement entered into between the Secretary and any cooperator for the purpose of sharing costs or services in carrying out authorized functions and responsibilities of the Secretary with respect to any System unit or System program, any affiliated area, or any designated national scenic trail or national historic trail.

(2) Cooperator.—The term "cooperator" means any State or local government, public or private agency, organization, institution, corporation, individual, or other entity.

(b) Authority To Enter Into Challenge Cost-Share Agreements.—The Secretary may negotiate and enter into challenge cost-share agreements with cooperators.

(c) Source of Federal Share.—In carrying out challenge cost-share agreements, the Secretary may provide the Federal funding share from any funds available to the Service.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3134; Pub. L. 113–40, §10(c), Oct. 2, 2013, 127 Stat. 546.)

#### Amendment Not Shown in Text

This section was derived from section 1f of Title 16, Conservation, which was amended by Pub. L. 113–40, §10(c), Oct. 2, 2013, 127 Stat. 546. For applicability of that amendment to this section, see section 6(b) of Pub. L. 113–287, set out as a Transitional and Savings Provisions note preceding section 100101 of this title. Former section 1f of Title 16, which consisted of pars. (1) to (3) [restated in this section as subsecs. (a) to (c)], was amended by Pub. L. 113–40 by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

*"(4) AVAILABLE FUNDS* *.—Out of any amounts in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $20,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary of the Interior for fiscal year 2018, and $30,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary of the Interior for fiscal year 2019, without further appropriation and to remain available until expended, to pay the Federal funding share of challenge cost-share agreements for deferred maintenance projects and to correct deficiencies in National Park Service infrastructure.*

*"(5) COST-SHARE REQUIREMENT* *.—Not less than 50 percent of the total cost of project for funds made available under paragraph (4) to pay the Federal funding share shall be derived from non-Federal sources, including in-kind contribution of goods and services fairly valued."*

| *Revised* Section | *Source (U.S. Code)* | *Source (Statutes at Large)* |
| ----------------- | -------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 101701 | 16 U.S.C. 1f. | Pub. L. 104–333, div. I, title VIII, §814(g), Nov. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 4199. |
For Utilities and Energy 

Efficiency Program 

Administrators

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Energy Asset Score is a national 

standardized tool for evaluating the 

physical and structural energy efficiency of commercial and multifamily 

residential buildings. The Asset Score 

generates a simple energy efficiency 

rating that enables comparison among 

buildings, and identifies opportunities 

for users to invest in energy efficiency 

upgrades. It is web-based and free to 

use.

Overview

While the tenants and energy 

usage patterns within a building 

frequently change, its physical 

structure and major systems and 

equipment remain mostly constant. These underlying energy 

“assets” – such as the building 

envelope, windows, and major 

energy-related systems – have a 

significant impact on how efficiently energy is used regardless 

of how the building operates or the 

behavior of occupants.

The Asset Score assesses the 

energy efficiency of these assets 

and identifies opportunities for 

improvement. Using building 

information input by the user, the 

tool runs a building energy simulation and generates a report that includes the following information: 

• A 10-point score based on the 

energy efficiency of the building 

envelope and the mechanical, 

electrical, and service hot water 

systems.

• An energy efficiency assessment 

of the building’s individual 

systems.

• Estimated energy usage for the 

building and end uses under 

standard operating conditions.

• Opportunities to upgrade building efficiency, and a “potential” 

energy efficiency score based on 

identified upgrades.

The Asset Score can be used for 

new construction projects and 

existing buildings with commercial or multifamily residential 

use types, including office, retail, 

warehouse, education, lodging, police and fire stations, and 

residential apartments. For a full 

listing of use types and more 

information on the Asset Score, 

please visit: http://energy.gov/eere/

buildings/building-energy-assetscore. 

The Asset Score uses a 10-point scale to evaluate the energy efficiency of a building’s 

physical characteristics and major energy-related systems.

Value for Utilities 

and Utility Program 

Administrators:

Use of the Asset Score is expanding 

nationwide in the public and private 

sectors. Utilities and utility program 

administrators can use the Asset 

Score to:

•	 Quickly and cost-effectively 

identify new customers for rebate 

and incentive programs

•	 Enhance customer service by 

providing Asset Score evaluations 

for customers

•	 Demonstrate commitment to clean 

energy and corporate social 

responsibility

•	 Quantify energy efficiency results 

to regulators and other parties

Contact us at 

asset.score@ee.doe.gov

BUILDING ENERGY ASSET SCORE

For more information, visit: buildings.energy.gov

DOE/EE-1179 • January 2015

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE
#### Frank G. Back, Doing Business under the Name of Research & Development Laboratory, Appellant, v. Leonard E. Bergstein, Respondent.

In an action for specific performance of an agreement to assign a patent (1st cause of action) and for a declaratory judgment or for reformation of an agreement and a general release (2d cause of action), plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 29, 1960, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action pursuant to subdivision 6 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the claim set forth in such cause of action has been released; and to dismiss the second cause of action pursuant to subdivisions 1 and 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject of the action; and (2) from the judgment entered April 6, 1960, on said order, dismissing the complaint. Judgment and order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. On the record presented, it may not be determined summarily that the claim asserted in the first cause of action has been released. As to the second cause of action, in our opinion it is sufficient as a pleading, and the court has jurisdiction of the subject of the action. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            5
<LEGEND>

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 THAT
WERE FILED WITH POWER EXPLORATION'S AUDIT ON FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000316621
<NAME>                                      Power Exploration, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
<CURRENCY>                                  U.S. Dollars

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                      0
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,806
<PP&E>                                      756
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              8,896,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       720,261
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    278,023
<OTHER-SE>                                  7,898,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                8,896,912
<SALES>                                     164,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            164,191
<CGS>                                       318,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,737,569
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (3,307,976)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (1,367,752)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (17,249,106)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (17,249,106)
<DISCONTINUED>                              (362,807)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (17,611,913)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (1.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (1.90)


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET AT MARCH  31,  1999  AND THE  RELATED  CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS  OF INCOME FOR THE THREE  MONTHS  ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 OF  THREE-FIVE
SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.  THIS  EXHIBIT  SHALL  NOT BE  DEEMED  FILED FOR
PURPOSES  OF  SECTION  11 OF THE  SECURITIES  ACT OF 1933 AND  SECTION 18 OF THE
SECURITIES  EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, OR OTHERWISE  SUBJECT TO THE LIABILITY OF SUCH
SECTIONS,  NOR SHALL IT BE DEEMED A PART OF ANY OTHER FILING WHICH  INCORPORATES
THIS REPORT BY REFERENCE,  UNLESS SUCH OTHER FILING EXPRESSLY  INCORPORATES THIS
EXHIBIT BY REFERENCE.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                       561
<INVENTORY>                                     13,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,627
<PP&E>                                          53,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,232
<BONDS>                                          7,039
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            80
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,946
<SALES>                                         23,044
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,044
<CGS>                                           20,191
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,461
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    30
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 155
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,602)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (960)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (642)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
Order filed July 2, 2015

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 15

- 00105

- CV

___________

STEPHEN MANLEY , Appellant

V.

FIRST CASTLE HOMES A ND ELIZABETH ALEXAND ER , Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 321010189

O R D E R

No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter

for the 189th District Court informed this court that appellant had not made

arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On May 19 , 2015 , the clerk of

this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do

not require a reporter = s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, provided

this court with proof of payment for the record. See T ex. R. App

. P. 37.3(c).

Appellant filed no reply.Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within thirty

days of the date of this order. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court

will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
#### James Smalls *v.*State of Connecticut

*Alan Neigher,*in support of the motion.

Submitted November 5

decided November 12, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to expedite his appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 March 28, 2014

h0324

Order 

Clerk

March 28, 2014

146746

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146746

COA: 311435

Shiawassee CC: 02-007574-FC

RICKY ALLEN PARKS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of October 23, 2013, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 

2013 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People 

v Shaver (Docket No. 146521). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been 

denied in Shaver, ___ Mich ____ (2014), the application is again considered, and it is 

DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement 

to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
**EXHIBIT
12.2**
 **CERTIFICATION**
  I, David
Wolfin, President of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd., certify
that:
  
 1.  I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd.;
 
 2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this 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
      report;
 
 3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company
      as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.
    The
      Company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and
      have:
 
 (a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the Company, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;
 
 (b)
    Omitted;
 
 (c)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and
      presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (d)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent annual report
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.
    The
      Company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control
      over financial reporting.
 
 Dated:
August 12,
2005     */s/
David Wolfin* ________
 David
Wolfin, President
 (Principal
Financial Officer)
 
 
 58
### §2247. Sale of samples of pure sugars

The Secretary of Agriculture may furnish, upon application, samples of pure sugars, naval stores, microscopical specimens, and other products to State and municipal officers, educational institutions, and other parties and charge for the same a price to cover the cost thereof, such price to be determined and established by the Secretary, and the money received from sales to be deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.

(Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 144, 38 Stat. 1101.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 555 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
<PAGE>                                                         EXHIBIT 23(a)

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Forms S-3 Nos. 333-01599, 333-24091, and 333-41003) of First
Commercial Corporation and the related Prospectuses of our report dated
January 20, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
First Commercial Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 1997.

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1987 Incentive and Nonqualified Stock
Option Plans of First Commercial Corporation (No. 33-79462), the Employee
Stock Ownership Credit and 401(k) Plan of First Commercial Corporation
(No. 333-02565), and the 1997 Incentive Stock Plan of First Commercial
Corporation (No. 333-30089) of our report dated January 20, 1998, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of First Commercial Corporation
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1997.



                                                     /s/Ernst & Young LLP

Little Rock, Arkansas
March 26, 1998