alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Wells, 2020-Ohio-1187.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WARREN COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

JERRY K. WELLS, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NOS. CA2019-10-106 

 CA2019-10-112 

D E C I S I O N 

 3/30/2020 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. 16CR0312217 

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 

Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee 

Jeffery E. Richards, 147 Miami Street, P.O. Box 536, Waynesville, Ohio 45068, for 

appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Jerry K. Wells, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript 

of proceedings and original papers from the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, 

and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review 
Warren CA2019-10-106 

 CA2019-10-112 

 - 2 - 

of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be 

predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," 

Anders, at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record 

independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and 

without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to 

withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and 

(5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon 

appellant. 

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response 

having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error 

prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of 

counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is 

dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous. 

HENDRICKSON, P.J., RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.
§ 58.120 Protocol. ( a ) Each study shall have an approved written protocol that clearly indicates the objectives and all methods for the conduct of the study. The protocol shall contain, as applicable, the following information: ( 1 ) A descriptive title and statement of the purpose of the study.
( 2 ) Identification of the test and control articles by name, chemical abstract number, or code number.
( 3 ) The name of the sponsor and the name and address of the testing facility at which the study is being conducted.
( 4 ) The number, body weight range, sex, source of supply, species, strain, substrain, and age of the test system.
( 5 ) The procedure for identification of the test system.
( 6 ) A description of the experimental design, including the methods for the control of bias.
( 7 ) A description and/or identification of the diet used in the study as well as solvents, emulsifiers, and/or other materials used to solubilize or suspend the test or control articles before mixing with the carrier. The description shall include specifications for acceptable levels of contaminants that are reasonably expected to be present in the dietary materials and are known to be capable of interfering with the purpose or conduct of the study if present at levels greater than established by the specifications.
( 8 ) Each dosage level, expressed in milligrams per kilogram of body weight or other appropriate units, of the test or control article to be administered and the method and frequency of administration.
( 9 ) The type and frequency of tests, analyses, and measurements to be made.
( 10 ) The records to be maintained.
( 11 ) The date of approval of the protocol by the sponsor and the dated signature of the study director.
( 12 ) A statement of the proposed statistical methods to be used.
( b ) All changes in or revisions of an approved protocol and the reasons therefore shall be documented, signed by the study director, dated, and maintained with the protocol.
[43 FR 60013, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 52 FR 33781, Sept. 4, 1987; 67 FR 9585, Mar. 4, 2002]
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 40536/40537

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LOYAL DEAN WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 619

Filed: August 7, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge. 

Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of five years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of two years, for grand theft and a unified 

sentence of seven years with three years determinate for possession of a 

controlled substance, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, Loyal Dean Williams pled guilty to grand theft, Idaho 

Code §§ 18-2403(2)(b), 18-2407(1) in Docket No. 40536; and to possession of a controlled 

substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1) in Docket No. 40537. The district court sentenced Williams to a 

unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years on the grand theft 

charge and a concurrent unified sentence of seven years with three years determinate on the 

possession of a controlled substance charge. Williams appeals, asserting that the district court

abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence without considering his “rehabilitative 

potential.”
2

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

factors to be considered 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 standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Williams’ judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Form
10-K for December 31, 1995, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000948362
<NAME> MOBILE ENERGY SERVICES CO LLC
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      357,091
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          58,938
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        14,862
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 430,891
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             66,772
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  66,772
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           308,361
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              14,075
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   (5,895)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  61,653
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  430,891
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       82,497
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                 0
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      44,005
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      44,005
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         33,492
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,012
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  39,504
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        18,501
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,003
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   21,003
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        37,058
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       13,007
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          28,227
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 522.1660a Oxytetracycline solution, 200 milligrams/milliliter. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of sterile solution contains 200 milligrams of oxytetracycline base.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 000010, 016592, 054771, 055529, 061133, and 069254 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.500 of this chapter; and for No. 061133, see also § 500.1410 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Beef cattle, dairy cattle, and calves including prerumenative (veal) calves* — ( i ) *Amounts and indications for use.* (A) 3 to 5 mg per pound of body weight (mg/lb BW) per day (/day) intramuscularly, subcutaneously, or intravenously for treatment of pneumonia and shipping fever complex associated with *Pasteurella* spp. and *Haemophilus* spp., foot-rot and diphtheria caused by *Fusobacterium necrophorum,* bacterial enteritis (scours) caused by *Escherichia coli,* wooden tongue caused by *Actinobacillus lignieresii,* leptospirosis caused by *Leptospira pomona,* wound infections and acute metritis caused by *Staphylococcus* spp. and *Streptococcus* spp., and anthrax caused by *Bacillus anthracis.* ( B ) 5 mg/lb BW/day intramuscularly or intravenously for treatment of anaplasmosis caused by *Anaplasma marginale,* severe foot-rot, and advanced cases of other indicated diseases.
( C ) 9 mg/lb BW intramuscularly or subcutaneously as single dosage where retreatment of calves and yearlings for bacterial pneumonia is impractical, for treatment of infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis (pinkeye) caused by *Moraxella bovis,* or where retreatment for anaplasmosis is impractical.
( ii ) *Limitations.* Discontinue treatment at least 28 days prior to slaughter. Milk taken from animals during treatment and for 96 hours after the last treatment must not be used for food. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Swine* — ( i ) *Amounts and indications for use.* ( A ) Sows: 3 mg/lb BW intramuscularly once, approximately 8 hours before farrowing or immediately after completion of farrowing, as an aid in control of infectious enteritis (baby pig scours, colibacillosis) in suckling pigs caused by *E.* *coli.*
( B ) 3 to 5 mg/lb BW/day intramuscularly for treatment of bacterial enteritis (scours, colibacillosis) caused by *E.* *coli,* pneumonia caused by *Pasteurella multocida,* and leptospirosis caused by *Leptospira pomona.*
( C ) 9 mg/lb BW as a single dosage where retreatment for pneumonia is impractical.
( ii ) *Limitations.* Administer intramuscularly. Do not inject more than 5 mL per site in adult swine. Discontinue treatment at least 28 days prior to slaughter. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[45 FR 16479, Mar. 14, 1980. Redesignated and amended at 69 FR 31879, June 8, 2004] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations affecting § 522.1660a, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*
§ 520.600 Dichlorvos capsules and pellets. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each capsule contains 2.27 milligrams (mg) (4 percent) dichlorvos.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 069043 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer any combination of capsules and/or pellets so that the animal receives a single dose equaling 12 to 15 mg of dichlorvos per pound of body weight.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For removal of *Toxocara canis* and *Toxascaris leonina* (roundworms), *Ancylostoma caninum* and *Uncinaria stenocephala* (hookworms), and *Trichuris vulpis* (whipworm) residing in the lumen of the gastrointestinal tract.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[83 FR 48945, Sept. 28, 2018]
#### § 514.7 Withdrawal of applications without prejudice.

The sponsor may withdraw his pending application from consideration as a new animal drug application upon written notification to the Food and Drug Administration. Such withdrawal may be made without prejudice to a future filing. Upon resubmission, the time limitation will begin to run from the date the resubmission is received by the Food and Drug Administration. The original application will be retained by the Food and Drug Administration although it is considered withdrawn. The applicant shall be furnished a copy at cost on request.
§ 507.17 Plant and grounds. ( a ) The grounds around an animal food plant under the control of the management of the establishment must be kept in a condition that will protect against the contamination of animal food. Maintenance of grounds must include: ( 1 ) Properly storing equipment, removing litter and waste, and cutting weeds or grass within the immediate vicinity of the plant that may constitute an attractant, breeding place, or harborage for pests;
( 2 ) Maintaining driveways, yards, and parking areas so that they do not constitute a source of contamination in areas where animal food is exposed;
( 3 ) Adequately draining areas that may contribute to contamination of animal food; and
( 4 ) Treating and disposing of waste so that it does not constitute a source of contamination in areas where animal food is exposed.
( b ) The plant must be suitable in size, construction, and design to facilitate cleaning, maintenance, and pest control to reduce the potential for contamination of animal food, animal food-contact surfaces, and animal food-packaging materials, including that the plant must: ( 1 ) Provide adequate space between equipment, walls, and stored materials to permit employees to perform their duties and to allow cleaning and maintenance of equipment;
( 2 ) Be constructed in a manner such that drip or condensate from fixtures, ducts, and pipes does not serve as a source of contamination;
( 3 ) Provide adequate ventilation (mechanical or natural) where necessary and appropriate to minimize vapors (*e.g.,* steam) and fumes in areas where they may contaminate animal food and in a manner that minimizes the potential for contaminating animal food;
( 4 ) Provide adequate lighting in hand-washing areas, toilet rooms, areas where animal food is received, manufactured, processed, packed, or held, and areas where equipment or utensils are cleaned; and
( 5 ) Provide shatter-resistant light bulbs, fixtures, and skylights, or other glass items suspended over exposed animal food in any step of preparation, to protect against the contamination of animal food in case of glass breakage.
( c ) The plant must protect animal food stored outdoors in bulk from contamination by any effective means, including: ( 1 ) Using protective coverings where necessary and appropriate;
( 2 ) Controlling areas over and around the bulk animal food to eliminate harborages for pests; and
( 3 ) Checking on a regular basis for pests, pest infestation, and product condition related to safety of the animal food.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                         160,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  310,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   156,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               394,000
<PP&E>                                       1,237,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 275,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,007,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,635,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,017,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,710,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,007,000
<SALES>                                      1,992,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,992,000
<CGS>                                        1,990,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,884,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               465,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                94,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,357,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,357,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,357,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.31)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014202EN.01001401.xml

| 30.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France) lodged on 13 February 2014 — Adiamix v Direction départementale des finances publiques — Pôle Gestion fiscale

(Case C-202/14)

2014/C 202/16

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Adiamix

Appellant:

Defendant: Direction départementale des finances publiques — Pôle Gestion fiscale

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

The Court of Justice is requested to rule on the validity of European Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the exemption scheme established by Article 44 septies of the Code Général des Impôts concerning the takeover of firms in difficulty (1), with respect to classification of that scheme as an existing aid scheme.

septies

1

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38).

1

---
# C_2014439EN.01001601.xml

| 8.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 439/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2014 — Juergen Schneider, Erika Schneider v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-382/14)

(2014/C 439/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Juergen Schneider, Erika Schneider

Applicants:

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

1

| 2. | If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used for the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time-limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time-limit to be calculated? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used for the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time-limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time-limit to be calculated?

| 3. | If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---