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

Docket No. 45446

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

BRANDON JEFFREY ALLAN ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 438

Filed: April 30, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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.

Appeal from j udgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of eight years, with minimum periods of confinement of four years, for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellan t.

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

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Brandon Jeffrey Allan pled guilty to one count of trafficking in methamphetamine

, I.C.

§ 37

- 2732B(a)(4)(A), and one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to

deliver, I.C. § 37

- 2732(a)(1)(A)

. In exchange for his guilty pleas, an additional charge that he
was a persistent violator was dismissed. The district court followed the recommended plea

agreement of the parties and sentenced Allan to concurrent unified terms of eight years, with2 minimum periods of confinement of four years

. Allan filed a n I.C.R. 35 motion, which the

district court denied.

Mindful that Allan received the sentence he asked for , Allan asserts that the district court

erred in imposing an excessive sentence . The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party

from assert ing an error when his or her own conduct induces the commission of the error. State

v. Atkinson , 124 Idaho 816, 819, 864 P.2d 654, 657 (Ct. App. 1993). One may not complain of
errors one has consented to or acquiesced in. State v. Caudill , 109 Idaho 222 , 226, 706 P.2d 456,
460 (1985); State v. Lee , 131 Idaho 600, 605, 961 P.2d 1203, 1208 (Ct. App. 1998). In short,

invited errors are not reversible. State v. Gittins , 129 Idaho 54, 58, 921 P.2d 754, 758 (Ct. App.
1996). This doctrine applies to sentenci ng decisions as well as rulings made during trial. State v.
Griffith , 110 Idaho 613, 614, 716 P.2d 1385, 1386 (Ct. App. 1986).

Therefore, because Allan received the sentence he requested, he may not complain that

the district court abused its discretio n. Accordingly, Allan’s judgment of conviction and

concurrent unified sentences of eight years, with minimum periods of confinement of four years,
for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance with intent to

deliver is affirm ed.
#### § 156.500 Basis and scope.

This subpart implements section 1322 of the Affordable Care Act by establishing the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program to foster the creation of new consumer-governed, private, nonprofit health insurance issuers, known as “CO-OPs.” Under this program, loans are awarded to encourage the development of CO-OPs. Applicants that meet the eligibility standards of the CO-OP program may apply to receive loans to help fund start-up costs and meet the solvency requirements of States in which the applicant seeks to be licensed to issue CO-OP qualified health plans. This subpart sets forth the eligibility and governance requirements for the CO-OP program, CO-OP standards, and the terms for loans awarded under the CO-OP program.
May 17, 2010

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System

Docket No. FAA

- 2000

- 7980

400 7 th Street SW, Plaza 401 Washington, DC 20591

- 0001

Re : Exemption No. 5533, as amended; Docket FAA

- 2000

- 7980

Ladies/Gentlemen:

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) § 11.61, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA), on behalf of its member airlines 1 and other similarly

situated Part 121 certifi cate holders, petitions the Administrator for an extension of Exemption

No. 5533H , Docket No. FAA

- 2000

- 7980. This exemption is schedu led to expire on October 31,

2010

. Exemption 5533H provides relief from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to allow the member airlines of the Air Transport Association and other similarly situated Part 121 air carriers to permit qualified flight attendants not required by §121.391(c) to perform duties related to the sa fety of the airplane and its occupants during aircraft movement on the surface.

This request does not seek to change the conditions and limit ations of the current exemption

.
The conditions and circumstances, with regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, which warranted the original partial grant of exemption, continue to exist. This exemption has

been in use for thirteen years with no known compromise of safety.

1 Operator Members: ABX Air, Alaska Airlines, Airtrans, American Airlines, ASTAR Air Cargo, Atlas Air, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Evergreen International Airlines, FedEx Corporation, Hawaiian Airlines JetB lue Airways , Polar Air Cargo, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, UPS Airlines, US Airways.

Associate Members:

A eromexico, Air Canada, Air Jamaica, Mexicana

U.S. Department of TransportationDocket Management System

Docket No. FAA

- 2000

- 7980 May 17, 2010 Page 2

The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. This petition does not seek to establish a precedent, but merely would continue an accepted and established practice. Accordingly, ATA requests that publication and comment period be waived. (14 CFR §11.87).

A summary of this partition as required by 14 C FR §11.81 is attached.

If any further information or discussion is required, please call me at (202) 626 4012.

Sincerely,

Paul W. Railsback

Di rector of Operations
Air Transport Association 1302 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004

202 626

- 4012

Attachment s ( 1 )U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

Docket No. FAA

- 2000

- 7980 May 17, 2010

Attachment



### SUMMARY OF ATA PETITION

The Air Transport Association petitions on behalf of its member airlines and other similarly situated Part 121 operators for an extension of Exemption No. 5533H . This exemption provides relief from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, §121.311(b), to th e extent necessary to permit non

- required flight attendants to perform safety

- related duties during aircraft surface movement.
June10, 2015

Mr. Ryan Shust

5024 S.W. 92 nd Avenue Cooper City, FL 33328

Dear Mr. Shust:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 14, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1654), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.2

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### § 605.61 Procedures.

The procedural provisions applicable to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to this part. These procedures are found in §§ 611.6 through 611.10 of this title (45 CFR). In the event that the Department of Education or the Department of Health and Human Services conducts a hearing under this part on behalf of NSF, the provisions of 45 CFR 84.61 shall also apply except that the Director of NSF or his designee shall also be “the responsible Department official” for purposes of 45 CFR 81.102 and 81.121 and “the reviewing authority” for purposes of 45 CFR 81.103, 81.104, and 81.105. Also, in such cases, the Director of NSF rather than the Secretary of HHS or Education shall conduct the review provided for in 45 CFR 81.106.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
Exhibit 13.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Sterlite Industries (India) Limited (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2012 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 24, 2012



/s/ Mahendra Singh MehtaName: Mahendra Singh MehtaTitle: Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, and is not being filed either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and is not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after the
date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject
to the liabilities of Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
#### Devoe v. Nutter, appellant.

*Practice*— *mistalce as to order—relief against*— *new trial.*

In an action to recover an alleged interest in suits prosecuted by defendant, and for an accounting, the referee decided in favor of plaintiff, and directed judgment for a certain amount named. Upon a motion to set aside the report, it was claimed that defendant had acted under a misapprehension that the referee had made an order that the issues should be first tried and decided, and if adverse to defendant, an accounting would be taken, and that defendant had a set-off. in part, to plaintiff’s claim, which he had had no opportunity to establish. *Held,*that defendant having misapprehended the order made by the referee, and having been deprived of his right to contest the amount of the recovery, the report should be vacated so far as it related to that question, and the referee ordered to try and determine the same.

*652Appeal from an order of the special term denying motion to set aside report of referee. The action was brought by Isaac Devoe against David R Nutter. Another action was brought by plaintiff against defendant, in the court of common pleas. The actions were to recover an interest in suits brought by defendant, as attorney, for several parties against the collector of the port of New York, for erroneous assessment of duties; plaintiff’s interest being part of defendant’s'fees for his services. Both actions were referred to the same referee, who made an order that in the common pleas action the issues should be first tried and decided, and if adverse to defendant, an accounting should be had. Defendant understood and claimed that this order applied also to the supreme court action. The actions were tried simultaneously, the principal question and the evidence thereon being the same.

*Mudgett & Nutter,*for appellant.

*William L. Flagg,*for respondent.

Davis, P. J.

The head-note states fully the only point passed upon in the opinion. The order denying the motion was reversed and an order directed vacating the report so far as it related to the amount of the recovery, and that the referee proceed to try the question as to the amount plaintiff was entitled to recover, etc., etc.

*Ordered accordingly.*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Dean L. Cash, Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of ATEL
Capital Equipment Fund VIII, LLC (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 14, 2007



|                                                         |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                         |  | 
|Dean L. Cash                                             |  | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Managing Member |  | 

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.
1 The Honorable James C. England, Unit ed States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3495

___________ Dustin Sours, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Michael J. Astrue, * Commissioner of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 30, 2010 Filed: May 7, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Dustin Sours appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplementa l security income (SSI). Sours alleged disability since February 2003 from, among other things, clubfeet, herniated discs, obesity, and depression. Following severa l hearings, and a remand by the Appeals Council, an administrative la w judge (ALJ) found that certain of Sours’s impairments-2- were not severe; that the other impairments, while severe, did not meet the requirements of any listing, alone or combined; that Sours’s subjective complaints were not fully credible; that his residual functional capacity (RFC ) for sedentary work precluded his past relevant work; and that based on a vocational expert’s response to the ALJ’s hypothetical, Sours could perform certain unskilled sedentary jobs existing in substantial numbers in Missouri an d nationally. The Appeals Council denied review.
We agree with the district court that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Van Vickle v. Astrue , 539 F.3d 825, 828 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); see also Finch v. Astrue , 547 F.3d 933, 935-36 (8th Cir. 2008) (if ALJ explicitly discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing so, courts will normally defer to his judgment); Kirby v. Astrue , 500 F.3d 705, 707-08 (8th Cir. 2007) (impairment is not severe if it amounts only to slight abnormality that would not significantly limit claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities; it is claimant’s burde n to establish his impairment is severe); Tellez v. Barnhart , 403 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 2005) (in determinating RFC, ALJ must first evaluate claimant’s credibility ; RFC must take into account all relevant evidence, including medical records and observations of treating physicians and others). We decline to consider the ev idence and impairments Sours references for the first time on appeal, but if he now meets the require ments for SSI (as his insured status for DIB has expired), he s hould file a new application. See Fowler v. Shalala , 46 F.3d 876, 878-79 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
§ 270.10 How will we annually review the award process? ( a ) *Annual determination.* Annually, as needed, we will review the measures, data sources, and funding allocations specified in this part to determine if modifications, adjustments, or technical changes are necessary. We will add new measures or make changes in the funding allocations for the various measures only through regulations.
( b ) *Criteria.* We will determine if any modifications, adjustments, or technical changes need to be made based on: ( 1 ) Our experience in awarding high performance bonuses in previous years; and
( 2 ) The availability of national, State-reliable, and objective data.
( c ) *Consultation.* We will consult with the National Governors' Association, the American Public Human Services Association, and other interested parties before we make our final decisions on any modification, adjustment, or technical changes for the bonus awards. We will notify States and other interested parties of our decisions through annual program guidance. We will also post this information on the Internet.
#### § 261.21 What overall work rate must a State meet?

Each State must achieve a 50 percent minimum overall participation rate in FY 2006 and thereafter, minus any caseload reduction credit to which it is entitled as provided in subpart D of this part.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Varsity Group Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                              
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Dated: August 15, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Eric J. Kuhn             
|                       |  |  |  | Eric J. Kuhn                 
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                       |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ADEM ALBRA

, Appellant,

v.

LESLIE JOSEPH SZENDY

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 429

[ September 17, 2020 ]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael G. Kaplan , Judge; L.T. Case

No. DVCE19003942

.

Adem Albra, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, F ORST and ARTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3034.

#### W. D. Crane *v.*The State.

Misapplication oe County or City Funds.—Indictment to charge the misapplication of county or city funds, as that offense is defined by article 103 of the Penal Code, must *allege*the ownership of the funds in the county, city or town, as the case may be. This indictment failing to allege the ownership of the funds, is insufficient to charge the offense, wherefore the prosecution is dismissed.

Appeal from the District Court of Coleman. Tried below before the Hon. J. C. Randolph.

The appellant in this case, who was a deputy sheriff and deputy collector of Coleman county, was convicted for the misapplication of one hundred and fifty-five dollars and thirty-nine cents, alleged to have come into his possession by virtue of said office. The penalty assessed by the verdict was a term of two years in the penitentiary.

No brief for the appellant has reached the Reporters.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

This prosecution is under article 103 of the Penal Code. It is not alleged in the indictment that the money converted was owned by any county, city or town. It is as essential, in an indictment for this offense, to allege the ownership of the money or property converted, as it is in the case of *483theft or embezzlement, and it must be money owned by a county, city or town in order to constitute this offense. The Assistant Attorney General concedes the insufficiency of the indictment. The judgment is reversed and the prosecution is dismissed.

Opinion delivered November 24, 1888.

*Reversed and dismissed.*