alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43714

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER WAYNE THOMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 670

Filed: September 7, 2016

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Cynthia K. C. Meyer, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Ben McGreevy, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Christopher Wayne Thompson pled guilty to second degree murder. Idaho Code § 18-

4001. The district court sentenced Thompson to a unified term of fifty-two years with sixteen 

years determinate. Thompson filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. 

Thompson appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 

motion.

The State argues that the district court did not timely rule on the motion and thereby 

lacked jurisdiction to consider Thompson’s Rule 35 motion. Thompson notes that the reason for 

the delay in ruling on the motion was caused, in part, by the retirement of the original sentencing 

judge. “This court and other appellate courts have mitigated the arbitrary operation of the Rule 
2

by treating the time limit with some flexibility, allowing district courts to retain jurisdiction over 

timely-filed motions for a ‘reasonable time’ beyond the deadline.” State v. Torres, 107 Idaho 

895, 897-898, 693 P.2d 1097, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1984) (quoting United States v. Smith, 650 

F.2d 206, 209 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations and footnote omitted). 

For purposes of this appeal, this Court will assume that the district court had jurisdiction. 

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to 

the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); 

State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 

motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional 

information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. 

Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including 

any new information submitted with Thompson’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of 

discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Thompson’s Rule 35 

motion is affirmed.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1058

To promote greater public participation in decennial censuses by providing

for the expansion of the educational program commonly referred to

as the ‘‘Census in Schools Project’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1999

Mr. MILLER of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To promote greater public participation in decennial censuses

by providing for the expansion of the educational program commonly referred to as the ‘‘Census in Schools

Project’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Census in the Schools

5 Promotion Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds as follows:
2

•HR 1058 IH

1 (1) The program commonly referred to as the

2 ‘‘Census in Schools Project’’, under the auspices of

3 the Bureau of the Census, represents an effective

4 way to educate the Nation’s youth as to the reasons

5 why a full and complete census is so important to

6 a democratic society.

7 (2) Our schools may be the only institution that

8 maintains a continuing relationship with a broad

9 cross-section of this Nation’s families with children.

10 (3) Educating the children of this Nation as to

11 the importance of the census is an investment that

12 will promote greater levels of public participation,

13 especially in the hardest-to-count communities, not

14 only in the 2000 census, but censuses thereafter.

15 (4) The program referred to in paragraph (1),

16 while comprehensive, is one that the Bureau of the

17 Census has indicated it will not be able to implement

18 more broadly without additional funding.

19 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to promote

20 greater public participation in decennial censuses by pro21 viding for the expansion of the program referred to in

22 paragraph (1).
3

•HR 1058 IH

1 SEC. 3. PROGRAM EXPANSION.

2 The Secretary of Commerce shall take appropriate

3 measures to ensure that, under the program referred to

4 in section 2(a)(1)—

5 (1) a written invitation to participate in such

6 program shall be afforded—

7 (A) to the head of each elementary school

8 and of each secondary school;

9 (B) to each elementary school teacher; and

10 (C) to each secondary school teacher the

11 principal duties of whom involve the teaching of

12 mathematics, geography, or social studies; and

13 (2) upon timely acceptance of an invitation de14 scribed in paragraph (1), the individual involved

15 shall, without charge, be provided with a set of such

16 grade-appropriate teaching guides, student mate17 rials, or other information or materials as the Sec18 retary may determine.

19 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

20 The Secretary of Commerce may prescribe any regu21 lations necessary to carry out this Act.

Æ
September 2 0 , 2016

Exemption No. 12149 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1635

Ms. Kimberly Ann Oberst

Drone Survey Solutions

18870 Painted Leaf Court

Jupiter, FL 33458

Dear Ms. Oberst :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter posted to the public docket on July 21, 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Drone Survey Solutions (hereinafter petitioner or

operator) for an amendment to your current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and

( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1),

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations

. You

requested an amendme nt to change the company name from KEO Drone Survey Systems to

Drone Survey Solutions

. 1

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition wou ld be detrimental to the petitioner

.

1 The petitioner also requested to add aircraft. At this time, the FAA is unable to act on this request. When the

FAA is ready to act, we will proceed accordingly and no further action will be required by the petitioner.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 12149

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to change the operator name

.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Drone Survey Solutions is hereafter referred to as the operator.

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 12149 remain in effect

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immedi ate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on July 31, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Di rector, Flight Standards Service
Before the Third Division,

August 21, 1957

No. 61162.

protests 285594-K, etc. (New York).

#### J. & J. Distributing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams*& *Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 68625.

protests 58/25349 and 60/10829 (Tampa).

#### Metasco, Inc. *v.*United States,

*373Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with sitpulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333-48609 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 16, 2006, relating to (i) the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Waste Industries USA, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph related to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, *Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations,* effective January 1, 2003), and (ii) management’s report on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Waste Industries USA, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

March 16, 2006
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10 - 15 - 00022 - CR
MICHAEL DWAYNE CLARK , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014
- 585 - C2

CONCURRING OPINION
I believe the Court has erroneously applied the standard for sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether a person is an accomplice as a matter of law. The standard to determine whether an accomplice

- as - a - matter

- of

- law instruction should be given is n ot dependent on whether the evidence establishes as a matter of law that the person is guilty of the offense or a lesser included offense. “A witness is an accomplice as a matter of law when the witness has been charged with the same offense as theClark v. State Page 2

defend ant or a lesser

- included offense, or ‘when the evidence clearly shows that the witness could have been so charged.’” Court’s op. at p. 4. McQuirter was in possession of what she knew was two different types of contraband, marijuana and “crack or powder.” She could have been charged with the same offenses as Clark. There may be some evidence from which a fact finder could have concluded McQuirter was not aware the second category of contraband was heroin, but that does not mean she was not an accomplice as a matter of law. She could have been charged with possession of both the marijuana and the heroin. Furthermore, a fact finder could have rejected her feigned lack of knowledge that one of the substances was heroin
rather than some other contraband and convicted her. McQuirter was an accomplice as a matter of law. The trial court’s charge was erroneous by failing to instruct the jury properly. Nevertheless, I find the charge error in allowing the jury to determine if she was an accomplice rather than instructing the jury that she was an accomplice as a matter of
law harmless under the well

- recognized test set out in Almanza and its progeny. Almanza v. State , 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh'g). I, too, would
therefore overrule issue one. As to the third issue, I must also note my disagreement with the Court. I believe the objection was sufficiently specific to inform the trial court what it was that counsel wanted and the basis for it. We have never required the objecting p arty to articulate theClark v. State Page 3

specific rule number or statute under which the challenged conduct was proper. The issue was, in my opinion, adequately preserved. Nevertheless, I agree with the Court
that the error was harmless. Accordingly, I concur in the Cour t’s judgment which affirms the trial court’s judgment.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Concurring opinion delivered and filed October 8, 2015
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit: 10.5T

SECURITY INTEREST AGREEMENT (#5)                               September 5, 1991

WHEREAS the Trudy Corp of 165 Water Street in Norwalk, Ct. (hereafter "Trudy")
is seeking to pay various operating expenses including payment of property and
income taxes, and

WHEREAS the Trudy Corp needs additional cash, and has to date been unable to
secure financing from other sources, and

WHEREAS William W. Burnham (hereafter "Burnham") of White Oak Shade Road in New
Canaan, Ct. is willing to assist Trudy Corp by lending Trudy Corp $30,000
(thirty thousand dollars) via his check # 858 for deposit into the Company's
account 820-817-414,

NOW THEREFORE, Trudy Corp agrees to provide a security interest to Burnham in
recognition of the value he is providing the Company and the risks inherent
therein. Given that this cash is necessary for the company to survive, that cash
has great value to Trudy.

Trudy agrees to give Burnham a collateral interest in all Cash or Securities,
all Accounts Receivable both of Trudy and its subsidiary, Soundprints, all
inventory of whatever kind, and all furniture and fixtures. This security
interest shall be limited to the amount referred to above, plus imputed interest
of 12% per annum.

Burnham shall be entitled to perfect his security interest, if and when, Trudy
is unable to repay this debt on its maturity on November 1, 1991. In such
circumstances, Burnham shall have a collateral interest second only to that of
Union Trust (if any), but in any event senior to all trade creditors and to all
other liabilities of the Company unless otherwise stated or stipulated by
legislation.

Both parties agree that there may be partial reductions under this agreement as
goods are imported and paid for by Trudy; the collateral interest shall be
reduced pro rata.

AGREED:  /s/ Peter P. Ogilvie              ACCEPTED:  /s/ William W. Burnham
         ----------------------                       ----------------------
         Peter P. Ogilvie                             William W. Burnham 9/16/91
         for Trudy Corp
No. 63997.

protests 764306-G, etc. (Boston).

#### T. H. Lung Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 51551.

#### Protests 123351-K, etc., of Schenley Import Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination, because of breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gaugers’ returns as verified by the affidavits of the importers. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 66700.

#### Armeatco Import *v.*United States,

protest 61/6690 (Portland, Oreg.).

*425Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decharacterized horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66254, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This exhibit contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's financial statements for the period ended September 30, 1998, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements. This
exhibit shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise
subject to the liability of such Sections, nor shall it be deemed a part of any
other filing which incorporates this report by reference, unless such other
filing expressly incorporates this Exhibit by reference.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          60,867
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                       986
<INVENTORY>                                     35,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,677
<PP&E>                                          57,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 305,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,738
<BONDS>                                        111,850
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           164
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   305,934
<SALES>                                        251,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               251,877
<CGS>                                          157,079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,686
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,533
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,167
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,391
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,587
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,587
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.48
        

</TABLE>
No. 52818.

#### S. S. Pierce Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 49993-K, etc. (Boston and Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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 of Virage Logic Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the
period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), J. Daniel McCranie, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:

(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 and for the dates presented.



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|                                                   
|/s/ J. Daniel McCranie                             
|J. Daniel McCranie                                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer June 12,
2008
**Exhibit 23.1**

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement of American Apparel, Inc. on Form S-8 File No. 333-150293 of our report dated March 16, 2009, except for the restatement described in Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements which is dated August12, 2009, with respect to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and related consolidated financial statement schedule of American Apparel, Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007,and 2006 and our report dated March 16, 2009 with respect to our audit of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of American Apparel, Inc. as of December 31, 2008, which reports are included in this AmendmentNo. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of American Apparel, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

Our report on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting expressed an adverse opinion because of the existence of material weaknesses. 

/s/ Marcum LLP 

Marcum LLP 

(formerly Marcum & Kliegman LLP) 

New York, New York 

August 12, 2009
|   | (a) | The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                 |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                 |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Svein Moxnes Harfjeld                       |   |
|   |   | Svein Moxnes Harfjeld                                |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |   |

|   |   |                                                                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Eirik Ubøe                                            |   |
|   |   | Eirik Ubøe                                                     |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |

----