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

Docket No. 39368/39413

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

STEPHEN ROBERT JONES ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 615

Filed: August 29, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John P. Lus ter , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentence of five years, with two years determinate, for aggravated assault, affirmed ; judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentence of th ree years, with one year determinate, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________ Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
In docket number 39368, Stephen Robert Jones pled guilty to aggravated assault, Idaho
Code §§ 18

- 901(a), 18

- 905(b). The district court sentenced Jones to a unified term of five years,
with two years determinate, to be served concurrently with his sentence in docket number 39413. In docket number 39413, Jones pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code
§§ 37

- 2732(c)(1), 19

- 2514. The district court sentenced Jones to a unified term of three years, with one year determinate, to be served concurrently with his sentence in docket number 39368.
Jones appeals from both cases, contending his sentences are excessive. The two cases are consolidated on appeal.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. S ee State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 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 records in these cases, we cannot say that the district court abused its d iscretion.
Therefore, Jones’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
35

12 8 7 8 9 10 11

31 32 33 34 35 36 31

3

33 34 36 31 32

6 2 1

3

4 5 2 1 6

7

6 5 4

7 10 11 12

10

9

9

8

7 8

7

11 12

18 13

13

14

14

15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

23 24 19

23 24

22

22

21

21

20 19

19 20

25 30 26

26 25

27

27

29 28

30

30 29 28

35 36 31

36

31

35

34

34

32 33

31 32 33

6 2 1

1 6 3

2 3

4

4

5

5

6

7

11 12 9 10

CLOVERLAND SP

WICKIUP CG

WENATCHEE

GUARD

STATION RC

CABIN SADDLE CG INDIAN

TOM TH

Wenatchee Creek

Asotin Creek

South George Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

I-OW-AltD

1 0.5 0 1 Miles

LEGEND

South George Project Planning Area

Washington State Fish and Wildlife

Pomeroy Ranger District

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA)

Potential Wilderness Area

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness

Other Undeveloped Lands

Oregon Wild's Polygon

Recreation Feature

Forest Roads  ́

Map depicts Other Undeveloped Areas

within the South George project planning boundary.

Also depicts project activities for Alternative D.

This product is reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from

sources of differing accuracy, interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc.

Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate

or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right ot correct, update, modify, or replace GIS

products without notification. For more information contact the Umatilla National Forest Supervisors Office.

D.Dixon

GIS/Data Service Specialist

08/18/2011

Non-Commercial Thinning

Fuel Treatments

Harvest Units

Temporary Roads

4300

4304

4400

Map I-OW-AltD: Oregon Wild's Polygon in relation to Inventoried Roadless Areas, Potential Wilderness Areas, Forest Roads and Alternative D activities
From: Livy05@stny.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:26:00 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Cindy Beyler

Breesport, NY 14816
Case No. 14,208.

#### TRYON v. WHITE.

[1 Pet. C. C. 96; 1 1 Robb, Pat. Cas. 64.]

Circuit Court, D New Jersey.

April Term, 1815.

Nonsuit — Pleading—Patents—Specifications— Variance.

1. It is not a foundation for a nonsuit, that the declaration for an invasion of a patent right, does not lay the act complained of to be “against the form of the statute/’ under which the rights of plaintiff are derived. Contra formam statuti, is a matter of form, and may be cured by verdict

[Cited in Parker v. Haworth, Case No. 10,738.]

2. When the declaration professes to set forth the specification in a patent, as part of the grant the slightest variance is fatal, and the defendant is entitled to claim a nonsuit. In general, it is sufficient to state the grant in substance, in the declaration.

[Cited in Wilder v. McCormick, Case No. 17,-650.]

Action for violating a patent right of the plaintiff, for a machine for making combs.

After reading the pleadings, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground, that the declaration does not lay the act complained of, to be against the form of the statute, but merely claims damages at common law. 1 Com. Dig. 329; 1 Chit. PI. 357; 2 East, 341; Wils. 599; Fessenden, Forms, 209; 3 Woodeson, 214; 4 Burrows, 2387; 5 Johns. 175; 1 Saund. 135, pt. 4; 4 Burrows, 2333, 2351. To support the practice of a motion for a nonsuit, at this stáge of the cause, the counsel cited 1 Esp. 484; 2 Camp. 397; 1 Camp. 253.

On the other side, the counsel contended; that the declaration states the patent to be granted under the act of congress, and brings them into court, and also states the ease, precisely within the act. Contra for-mam statuti, therefore, need not have been laid. Mr. Chitty “gives the forms of declarations in this case, in which these words are not inserted. 1 Chit. 336.

TTTTfl COURT

refused to direct a nonsuit on this ground, inclining to the opinion, that, as the case stated in the declaration, is precisely within the act of congress, to which the declaration refers; contra formam, &c. is matter of form, the want of which would be cured by verdict.

The declaration, after stating the patent, which refers to the specification, proceeds to set forth the specification verbatim; but in doing so, the word whirl in the specification, is called wheel in the declaration. The specification speaks of the wheel and the whirl, as distinct parts of the machine. For this variation, the defendant renewed his motion for a nonsuit. Bull. N. P. 6; Vin. Abr. tit. “Variance,” A.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

This is an action brought upon a grant, to recover damages for the privilege secured by it. The grant refers to the specification, to explain what is granted; and, although it would have been sufficient to state in the declaration the substance of the grant, yet, when it professes to set forth the specification as a part of the grant, according to its tenor, the slightest variance is fatal.

Nonsuit directed.

A rule was afterwards granted, to show cause at the next court, why the nonsuit should not be set aside.
NUMBER 13

- 10

- 00 63 9

- CR



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DANIEL COLMENERO

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 319 th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Ro driguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Daniel Colmenero , by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to

dismiss his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,2

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the

21st day of December, 2010

.
No. 58691.

protest 232392-K (New York).

#### Roberts, Reilly & Sons *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
Before The First Division,

April 11, 1967

No. P67/104.

#### The Parker-Hartford Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 62/3970 (Bridgeport).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of projectorscopes, profiloscopesj and parts, which are dedicated to use on or for machine tools, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Parker-Hartford Corporation*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 302, C.D. 2594), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: dtimmons.prc@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:12:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Diana Timmons

South Charleston, OH 45368
From: leftdeacon@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:38:42 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Joseph Williams

Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
No. 63807.

protest 58/11012 (New York).

#### Spiratone, Inc., and Ad. M. Schmid & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 61631, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Skip Links
Case 2:05-cr-00417-RSM Document 77 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:05-cr-00417-RSM Document 77 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:05-cr-00417-RSM Document 77 Filed 12/02/05 Page 3 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION AS 

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DARRELL J. MORRIS, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR05-231-JCC 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 

AND DETERMINATION AS TO 

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 

SUPERVISED RELEASE

INTRODUCTION 

I conducted a hearing on alleged violations of supervised release in this case on December 

1, 2009. The defendant appeared pursuant to a warrant issued in this case. The United States 

was represented by Bruce Miyake, and defendant was represented by Michael Nance. Also 

present was Senior U.S. Probation Officer Jennifer Tien. The proceedings were digitally 

recorded. 

SENTENCE AND PRIOR ACTION 

Defendant was sentenced on April 14, 2006 by the Honorable John C. Coughenour for 

Possession of a Firearm. He received 30 months of detention and 3 years of supervised release. 

PRESENTLY ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 

In a petition dated November 16, 2009, Senior U.S. Probation Officer Jennifer Tien alleged 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION AS 

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE - 2 

that defendant violated the following conditions of supervised release: 

1. Possession of methamphetamine and marijuana on or about October 22, 2009, in 

violation of general condition that the defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled 

substance and standard condition number 7. 

2. Possession of drug paraphernalia on or about October 22, 2009, in violation of 

standard condition number 7. 

3. Failing to notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested or 

questioned by a law enforcement officer on or before October 22, 2009, and October 29, 2009, in 

violation of standard condition number 2. 

4. Failing to report to the probation officer as instructed on November 13, 2009, in 

violation of standard condition number 2. 

5. Falsifying a monthly supervision report for the month of October 2009, in violation 

of standard condition number 2. 

FINDINGS FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

Defendant admitted the above violations, waived any hearing as to whether they occurred, 

and was informed the matter would be set for a disposition hearing January 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. 

before District Judge John C. Coughenour. After hearing argument from the parties, the Court 

denied defendant’s motion for release pending disposition. 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Based upon the foregoing, I recommend the court find that defendant has violated the 

/// 

/// 

/// 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION AS 

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE - 3 

conditions of his supervised release as alleged above, and conduct a disposition hearing. 

DATED this 1st day of December, 2009. 

A 

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 

United States Magistrate Judge
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the financial statements included in the report.
  /s/ David E. Schreiman

David E. SchreimanChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; NINDS T32 applications review.                    

*Date:*                         October 16-17, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         San Francisco Marriott Union Square Hotel, 480 Sutter Street, San Francisco, CA 94108.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Abhignya Subedi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NINDS/NIH, NSC, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-496-9223,                         *abhi.subedi@nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 25, 2023.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21364 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P