alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
605 P.2d 967

#### The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ricardo Gino SHANACROPLOUS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12742.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Jan. 31, 1980.

*790John C. Lynn, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Boise, Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

SHEPARD, Justice.

This is an appeal from the imposition of a criminal sentence and the refusal of the trial court to exercise its discretion to suspend the execution of the judgment and sentence and retain jurisdiction over the case pursuant to I.C. § 19-2601(4). We affirm.

Defendant Ricardo Gino Shanacroplous pled guilty to charges of first degree burglary and persistent violation of the law under the provisions of I.C. § 19-2514. Appellant was thereafter sentenced to a term not to exceed life imprisonment. Appellant does not assert error as to the judgment of conviction or the sentence imposed upon him, but rather his sole assignment of error is that the trial court abused its jurisdiction in failing to retain jurisdiction over the defendant for 120 days pursuant to I.C. § 19-2601(4).

Appellant argues that the evidence presented on behalf of the appellant at a mitigation hearing indicates that the appellant had embarked upon an attempt to rehabilitate himself, had employment, and could maintain that employment.

Conversely, it is to be noted that the appellant has spent most of his life, both as a juvenile and as an adult, in correctional institutions. The instant conviction is the eighth of appellant’s adult life; his past record includes six burglary or grand larceny convictions and one escape conviction. Also, appellant was previously convicted and sentenced as a persistent violator of the law in 1961. In Idaho since 1952, appellant has been sentenced for various crimes to the Idaho State Correctional Institution to a total of sixty years incarceration. Appellant has been placed on parole six times.

Shortly after being apprehended for the instant crime, defendant-appellant voluntarily consulted a psychologist who testified that he believed appellant could be rehabilitated through counseling. On the other hand, the record discloses several previous psychiatric evaluations of appellant, none of which indicated any realistic hope of rehabilitation of a seasoned criminal.

We find no abuse of discretion. *E. g. State v. Powers,*100 Idaho 614, 603 P.2d 569 (1979); *State v. Cotton,*100 Idaho 573, 602 P.2d 71 (1979). The judgment of conviction and the sentence are affirmed.

DONALDSON, C. J., and BAKES, McFADDEN and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
      23.1
            Consent
      of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the
Board of Directors


North
Central Bancshares, Inc.


Fort
Dodge, Iowa





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Registration #333-33089) on Form S-8 as filed with the Commission on August 7,
1997 , the Registration Statement (Registration #333-82490) on Form S-8 as filed
with the Commission on February 11, 2002, and the Registration Statement
(Registration #333-133810) on Form S-8 as filed with the Commission on May 4,
2006, Registration Statement No. 333-157027 on Form S-3 (Registration
#333-157172) as filed with the Commission on March 27, 2009 of North Central
Bancshares, Inc. of our report dated March 12, 2010, relating to our audit
of the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of North Central Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended
December 31, 2009.











Des
Moines, Iowa


March 12,
2010
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Report on asylum seekers inexpedited removal [electronic resource].**
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.R 27:2/AS 9

Item Number:1095-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:000594555
 
Vols: 0102
 
April 17, 2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

424 

KAH 15-01739 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. 

VALARAE GREEN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

THOMAS J. STICHT, SUPERINTENDENT, GOWANDA 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., 

RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (BENJAMIN L. NELSON OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (HEATHER MCKAY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court,

Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), entered July 8, 2015. The

judgment, among other things, dismissed the petitions. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court (see also People ex rel. Green v Annucci, 133 AD3d

1367, 1368).

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

PATRICIA W. DANIEL, 

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent.

__________________________ 

2013-3040

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT0752110374-I-2.

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

The Department of the Army moves without opposition to reform the official caption to designate the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“Board”) as the respondent.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is 

designated as the respondent when the Board's decision 

concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. In this 

case, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of 

Case: 13-3040 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 04/24/2013
PATRICIA DANIEL V. MSPB 2

jurisdiction. Thus, the Board is the proper respondent in 

this petition for review. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The Department of the Army’s motion to reform 

the caption is granted. The revised official caption is 

reflected above. 

(2) The respondent should calculate its brief due date 

from the date of filing of this order.

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly

 Clerk 

s21 

Case: 13-3040 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 04/24/2013
§ 51-5.3 Scope of requirement. ( a ) When a commodity is included on the Procurement List, the mandatory source requirement covers the National Stock Number or item designation listed and commodities that are essentially the same as the listed item. In some instances, only a portion of the Government requirement for a National Stock Number or item designation is specified by the Procurement List. Where geographic areas, quantities, percentages or specific supply locations for a commodity are listed, the mandatory provisions of the JWOD act apply only to the portion or portions of the commodity indicated by the Procurement List.
( b ) For services, where an agency and location or geographic area are listed on the Procurement List, only the service for the location or geographic area listed must be procured from the nonprofit agency, except as provided in § 51-6.14 of this chapter. Where no location or geographic area is indicated by the Procurement List, it is mandatory that the total Government requirement for that service be procured from a nonprofit agency.
( c ) When a commodity or service is added to the Procurement List, the addition does not affect contracts for the commodity or service awarded prior to the effective date of the Procurement List addition or options exercised under those contracts.
[56 FR 48981, Sept. 26, 1991; 56 FR 64002, Dec. 6, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 59343, Nov. 16, 1994; 63 FR 16439, Apr. 3, 1998]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

 

2022 JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

Time Description Speakers

7:00 a.m. Check-in Breakfast

8:30 a.m. State of the Court and Welcome Kimberly A. Moore, Chief Circuit Judge

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

8:45 a.m. Federal Circuit Judges Panel

Ms. Maynard will moderate a panel discussion 

with the Judges of the Federal Circuit addressing 

observations from the bench about the best 

practices when advocating before that Court 

and other matters of concern in the day-to-day 

handling of appeals in the Federal Circuit.

Moderator: 

Deanne E. Maynard, Partner

Morrison Foerster LLP

Panelists:

The Judges of the Federal Circuit

10:15 a.m. Networking Break

10:35 a.m. Tribunal and Agency Panel

Judge Taranto will moderate a discussion with 

judges and officials from tribunals within the 

Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction addressing trials, 

fact-finding, and decision-making in their 

respective tribunals.

Moderator:

Richard G. Taranto, Circuit Judge

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Panelists:

Margaret Bartley, Chief Judge

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Elaine D. Kaplan, Chief Judge

U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge

U.S. Court of International Claims

David S. Johanson, Chair 

U.S. International Trade Commission

Cathy A. Harris, Acting Chair

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Scott R. Boalick, Chief Judge 

Patent Trial Appeal Board

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Time Description Speakers

11:30 a.m. Networking Break

12:15 p.m. Luncheon

12:45 p.m. Keynote Speaker Elizabeth B. Prelogar

Solicitor General of the United States 

1:15 p.m. American Inns of Court

Professionalism Award

The American Inns of Court Professionalism Awards are 

awarded each year in participating federal courts to a 

lawyer or judge whose life and practice display sterling 

character and unquestioned integrity, coupled with ongoing 

dedication to the highest standards of the legal profession 

and the rule of law.

1:30 p.m. Administrative Law Panel Moderator:

Paul D. Clement, Partner

Clement & Murphy PLLC

Panelists:

Raymond T. Chen, Circuit Judge 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Patricia A. Millett, Circuit Judge

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals 

Lisa Blatt, Partner

Williams & Connolly LLP

Jeffrey A. Lamken, Partner

MoloLamken LLP

2:45 p.m. 40th Anniversary: 

A Review of the Federal Circuit

Moderator:

Timothy R. Holbrook, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs and 

Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law

Emory University School of Law

Panelists:

Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, Pauline Newman Professor of Law; 

Co-Director, Engelberg Center on Innovation 

Law & Policy

New York University School of Law

Scott M. McCaleb, Partner

Wiley Rein LLP

Mark A. Robbins, Interim Executive Director

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Martin F. Hockey, Jr. 

Deputy Director

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch 

Elizabeth J. Drake, Partner

Schagrin Associates
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.
S. C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10- Q
of Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period June 30, 2011 (the "Report"),
Mark Yung, Executive Chairman of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) To my knowledge, the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|DATE: AUGUST 22nd, 2011 BY: /S/ MARK YUNG --------------------------- MARK YUNG EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Exhibit
32(b)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Appalachian Power Company (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Holly Keller
Koeppel, the chief financial officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Holly Keller Koeppel
____


Holly
Keller Koeppel


Chief
Financial Officer








May 1,
2008








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.7

AMENDMENT NO. 5
YAHOO! INC. - E-LOAN INC.
LICENSE AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 5 ("Amendment No. 5") is entered into
as of 4/4/01 (the "Amendment No. 5 Effective Date") between Yahoo!
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Yahoo"), and E-LOAN Inc., a California
corporation ("E-Loan") and amends the License Agreement entered into
between Yahoo and E-Loan dated September 4, 1998, with a Launch Date of
March 1, 1999, as subsequently amended by the parties. The License
Agreement and all amendments are collectively referred to herein as the
"Agreement."

WHEREAS, E-Loan and Yahoo wish to enter into this Amendment No. 5
to describe the pricing and other terms and conditions that will apply during
the period commencing on the Amendment No. 5 Effective Date and continuing
until June 30, 2001.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, Yahoo and E-Loan hereby agree as follows:

1. The term of the Agreement described in Section 8.1, as previously
extended, will be extended for an additional two (2) months commencing
May 1, 2001 and continuing until June 30, 2001 (the "Subsequent
Term").
2. Section 4.1 of the Agreement relating to Slotting Fees is amended such
that E-Loan will pay to Yahoo a Slotting Fee for the Subsequent Term of [*], to
be paid in two (2) equal monthly payments of [*] per month on the first day of
every month commencing May 1, 2001 and continuing until June 30,
2001.
3. Section 4.2 of the Agreement relating to Click-through Fees is amended
such that for the Remainder of the Subsequent Term, E-Loan will pay to Yahoo a
fee equal to [*] per Click-through after a total of [*] Click-throughs have
occurred.
4. Except as expressly amended as set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. Unless otherwise
specified, all defined terms used in this Amendment No. 5 shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.
5. This Amendment No. 5 has been executed by the duly authorized
representatives of the parties, effective as of the Amendment No. 5 Effective
Date.



|YAHOO! INC.                | E-LOAN INC.              
|-------------------------- | -------------------------
|By:	/s/ George E. Williams | By:	/s/ Joseph J. Kennedy
|Name:	George E. Williams   | Name:	Joseph Kennedy     
|Title:	VP/GM               | Title:	President/COO     
|Date:	4/09/01              | Date:	4/4/01             



---
192P16

#### Owen D. Leavitt v. State of North Carolina

1. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court, Alexander County

1. Dismissed

2. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-1902: In Re Asset Guard Products, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"AT3c4DPZoU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-11-2022-2021-1902-in-re-asset-guard-products-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-1902: In Re Asset Guard Products, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-11-2022-2021-1902-in-re-asset-guard-products-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=AT3c4DPZoU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-1902: In Re Asset Guard Products, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"AT3c4DPZoU\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: In Re Asset Guard Products, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-1902 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
#### § 10.510 Call preemption prohibition.

Devices marketed for public use under part 10 must present an Alert Message as soon as they receive it, but may not enable an Alert Message to preempt an active voice or data session. If a mobile device receives a WEA Alert Message during an active voice or data session, the user may be given the option to control how the Alert Message is presented on the mobile device with respect to the use of the common vibration cadence and audio attention signal.

[81 FR 75726, Nov. 1, 2016]
47021.

#### ROUNDTREE v. THE STATE.

(380 SE2d 271)

Decided June 29, 1989.

*Roger E. Douglas,*for appellant.

*H. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, J. David Miller, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General,*for appellee.

Smith, Justice.

Appellant D. B. Roundtree III was found guilty of the murder of Sonya Lyvette Coxfield and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and five years imprisonment for possession. We affirm.1

The evidence showed that the appellant shot his girl friend with a shotgun causing her death.

1. There was sufficient evidence presented at trial to meet the test of *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. The trial court did not err in allowing the two photographs of the victim at the scene of the crime and one photograph of the victim’s blouse into evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Bell and Hunt, JJ., not participating.*

1

 The crimes were committed on October 20, 1988. The Lowndes County jury returned its verdict of guilty on March 8, 1989. A notice of appeal was filed on March 21, 1989. The transcript of evidence was filed on April 21, 1989. The record was docketed in this Court on May 5, 1989. The case was submitted on June 16, 1989.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4359

To require a study and report on environmental restoration at the Nevada

Test Site, Nevada.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 5, 1994

Mr. KOPETSKI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To require a study and report on environmental restoration

at the Nevada Test Site, Nevada.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL RES4 TORATION AT NEVADA TEST SITE.

5 (a) STUDY.—(1) The Secretary of Energy shall con6 duct a study to determine the total cost of environmental

7 restoration activities needed to be conducted at the Ne8 vada Test Site, Nevada, as a result of nuclear weapons

9 testing at the Site.
2

•HR 4359 IH

1 (2) The Secretary of Energy shall conduct the study

2 in cooperation with any other Federal agencies the Sec3 retary considers appropriate. The Secretary of Energy

4 shall invite representatives of the Government of Great

5 Britain to participate in the conduct of the study.

6 (b) REPORT.—Not later than May 1, 1995, the Sec7 retary of Energy shall submit to the Congress a report

8 on the results of the study.

Æ