alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T KE I T H L . DRUN AS KY , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. AR I Z ON A D E P AR T ME NT OF E C O N O M I C S E C U R I T Y ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 16316 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 0 1 4 - SRB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona S us an R . B ol t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K e i th L . D runa s kyappe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt d is m is s in g h is a c tio n a lle g in g c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s in c o n n e c tio n w ith s ta te c h ilds up p o rt e n f

o r c e m e n t p r o c e e d in g s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . 

# FI LED MA Y28 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 16316 2 § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , Sac k s v . O f f i c e of For e i gn A s s e t s Contr ol , 466 F . 3d 7 6 4 , 7 7 0 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , an dw e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed D runasky’ s a ct i on un der Y ou ng erv. H a rr is , 4 0 1 U .S . 3 7 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , b e c au s e th e s ta te f a m ilyc o u rt p r o c e e d in g s ar e s till o n g o in g , im p lic a te im p o rtan t s ta te in te r e s ts , an dp r o v id e an a d e qu a te o p p o rtu n ity to litig a te f

e d e r a l c la im s . See H

. C . exre l. G ordo n v. Kop pel , 203 F . 3d 610, 613- 14 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ab s te n tio n r e q u ir e dw h e r e c h ildc u s to d yp r o c e e d in g s w e r e s till on go i ng ). D runasky’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 127 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          June 9, 2008.
Whereas July 7, 2008, marks the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the Alaska 
        Statehood Act as approved by the United States Congress and signed by 
        President Dwight D. Eisenhower;
Whereas the Alaska Statehood Act authorized the entry of Alaska into the Union 
        on January 3, 1959;
Whereas the land once known as ``Seward's Folly'' is now regarded as critical to 
        the strategic defense of the United States and important to our national 
        and economic security;
Whereas the people of Alaska remain committed to the preservation and protection 
        of the Union, with among the highest rates of veterans and residents in 
        active military service of any State in the Nation;
Whereas Alaska is the northernmost, westernmost, and easternmost State of the 
        Union, encompassing an area one-fifth the size of the United States;
Whereas the State of Alaska has an abundance of natural resources vital to the 
        Nation;
Whereas Alaska currently provides over 16 percent of the daily crude oil 
        production in the United States and has 44 percent of the undiscovered 
        oil resources and 36 percent of undiscovered conventional gas in the 
        United States;
Whereas Alaska's 34,000 miles of shoreline form a gateway to one of the world's 
        greatest fisheries, providing over 60 percent of the country's 
        commercial seafood harvest;
Whereas over 230 million acres of Alaska are set aside in national parks, 
        wildlife refuges, national forests, and other conservation units for the 
        benefit of the entire country;
Whereas over 58 million acres are designated wilderness in Alaska, representing 
        55 percent of the wilderness areas in the United States;
Whereas Alaska Natives, the State's first people, are an integral part of 
        Alaska's history, and preserving the culture and heritage of Alaska's 
        Native people is of primary importance;
Whereas the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971 signaled 
        a new era of economic opportunity for Alaska Natives;
Whereas Alaska's Native people have made major contributions to the vitality and 
        success of Alaska as a State;
Whereas the people of Alaska represent the pioneering spirit that built this 
        great Nation and contribute to our cultural and ethnic diversity; and
Whereas the golden anniversary, on January 3, 2009, provides an occasion to 
        honor Alaska's entry into the Union: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and celebrates the 
50th anniversary of the entry of Alaska into the Union as the 49th State.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
##### 



CERTIFICATE OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF
DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
  a.
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andb.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the
Company at September 30, 2006, and the results of the
Companys operations for the period ended September 30, 2006.
 November 9, 2006
    /s/ BRUCE R. KNOOIHUIZENBruce R. KnooihuizenExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
       and principal financial officer
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36684

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GERALD B. CUMMINGS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 562

Filed: July 23, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified seven-year

sentence, with one and one-half year determinate term, for possession of a 

controlled substance, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Gerald B. Cummings, Jr. pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-

2732(c)(1), and the district court imposed a unified seven-year sentence, with a one and one-half 

year determinate term. The court suspended the sentence and placed Cummings on probation. 

This probation was subsequently revoked and the suspended sentence ordered into execution. 

Cummings filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court 

denied. On appeal, Cummings does not challenge the district court’s decision to revoke 

probation, but argues only that this sentence is excessive.
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). 

When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of 

probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original 

judgment. State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our 

review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring 

between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Applying these standards, 

and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its 

discretion.

Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Cummings’s 

previously suspended sentence is affirmed.
#### Matter of Order confirming Orders of County Judge opening Buel’s Lane.

Order affirmed. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
From: Helland, Lois Ann

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: preventative care for women

Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 8:10:27 AM

Dear Health and Human Services Staff:

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for "religious employers." These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that "religious refusal" exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for

the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so Catholic hospitals would be exempt

from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If

granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where

they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM's

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Sincerely,

Lois Helland

400 Foxmoor Lane

Eau Claire, WI 54701
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the December
31, 1998 and 1997 financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000707606
<NAME> SYSTEMS & COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      11,934,000              31,744,000
<SECURITIES>                                39,386,000              69,952,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              145,211,000             108,874,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,919,000               4,760,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           212,188,000             214,867,000
<PP&E>                                      97,379,000              70,053,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,435,000              29,135,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             330,544,000             288,456,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       74,911,000              51,404,000
<BONDS>                                     78,415,000              76,912,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       363,000                 356,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 176,855,000             158,553,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               330,544,000             288,456,000
<SALES>                                    109,196,000              85,401,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           109,769,000              87,281,000
<CGS>                                       75,274,000              53,689,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              101,180,000              75,535,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,145,000                 820,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,444,000              10,926,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,978,000               4,481,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,466,000               6,445,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,466,000               6,445,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        


</TABLE>
From: N GRADY

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptive Services

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 1:33:55 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

If a woman for religious reasons doesn't want these services, she won't ask for them. The

individual woman can make her own decision, rather than have it made for her by an

institution. Women are capable, although laws concerning them sometimes seem to deny it.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services,

are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are

pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they

employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Century
Properties Fund XX 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000736909
<NAME> CENTURY PROPERTIES FUD XX
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,274
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          48,803
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         31,386
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,035)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,316
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,625
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,510)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (23.94)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23c


           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements listed below of BellSouth Corporation:

         -  Form S-3 (File No. 333-117772)

         -  Form S-3 (File No. 333-120170)

         -  Form S-8 (File No. 333-115034)

         -  Form S-8 (File No. 333-115035)

         -  Form S-8 (File No. 333-115036)

         -  Form S-8 (File No. 333-105710)

         -  Form S-8 (File No. 333-75660)

of our report dated March 3, 2005, with respect to the financial statements
of Omnipoint Facilities Network II, LLC (the "Company") (not included separately
herein), in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Cingular Wireless LLC for the years
ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
BellSouth Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Our report refers to the Company restating its financial statements as of and
for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 7, 2005
#### Ansel T. Becker, Respondent, v. John Greenway, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Barker, J.
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (R)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-109182

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  488                                                                   Trade Date:  09/24/04

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                              Issue Date:   09/30/04

The Date of this Pricing SupplementSeptember 24, 2004

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                  Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QWH0  5.40%        09/15/24        100%                2.18%             Semi-Annually                YES         YES               Callable at 100% beginning 09/15/08

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       and semi-annuallythereafter.                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$3,164,000.00         $3,095,024.80         ABN AMRO Inc.        03/15/05               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (R) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (R) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $170.721 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (R) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (R) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated October 15,2003.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Edward O. Kindberg, Deceased. August Reymert et al., Appellants; The Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Respondent.

(Submitted January 6, 1913;

decided Jauuary 14, 1913.)

Motion to amend remittitur. (See 207 N. Y. 220.)

Motion granted so as to award the guardian *ad litem*his costs and disbursements in this court payable out of the estate.