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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41738

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DANIELLE R. CLAUSEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 786

Filed: October 30, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Danielle R. Clausen pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-

2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Clausen to a unified term of seven years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of three years. The district court suspended the sentence and 

placed Clausen on probation. Thereafter, Clausen admitted to violating the terms of her 

probation. The district court revoked the probation, ordered execution of the original sentence, 

but retained jurisdiction. Ultimately the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Clausen filed an 

I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of her sentence, which the district court denied. Clausen appeals, 

claiming that the district court erred by refusing to grant probation. 

We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to 

relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district 
2

court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 

Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-

97 (Ct. App. 1990).

The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information 

before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Clausen has failed to 

show that the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, the order of the district court 

relinquishing jurisdiction and Clausen’s sentence are affirmed.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4034 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Anthony Higbee,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1820 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

Mike Knowles, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoDecember 21, 2004, respondents filed and served an answer to

the petition. August 8, 2005, respondents moved to file a

supplemental answer to assert an additional defense in light of

Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 376 F.Supp.2d 975 (E.

D. Cal. 2005).

A supplemental pleading is the mechanism by which a party

alleges “transactions or occurrences or events which have

happened since the date of the pleading sought to be

supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). Since respondents seek to 

plead an additional defense, the court construes the request as 

Case 2:04-cv-01820-JAM-EFB Document 20 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

one to amend the answer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a),

A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter

of course at any time before a responsive pleading is

served or, if the pleading is one to which no

responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not

been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so

amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. 

Otherwise a party may amend the party’s pleading only

by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse

party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so

requires.

More than 20 days have passed since respondents answered the

petition and petitioner opposes the request to amend. But

respondents seek to amend based on a recent development in the

law and nothing suggests the motion is made in bad faith or

solely to delay resolution of this action. 

Accordingly, respondents’ August 8, 2005, request is granted

and the Clerk of the Court shall file the attached amended

answer.

So ordered.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01820-JAM-EFB Document 20 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3460]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,281]

Airtex Products LP, Including On-Site Leased Workers of Staffmark 
and Aid Temporary Services, Inc.; Marked Tree, Arkansas; Notice of 
Revised Determination on Reconsideration of Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance

    By letter dated February 8, 2007, a company official requested 
administrative reconsideration regarding Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers of the subject firm. The 
negative determination was signed on January 24, 2007, and was 
published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7087).
    The workers of Airtex Products LP, including on-site leased workers 
of Staffmark and Aid Temporary Services, Inc., Marked Tree, Arkansas 
were certified eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
on January 24, 2007.
    The initial ATAA investigation determined that there was not a 
significant number of workers in the workers' firm that are 50 years of 
age or older, and that the skills of the subject worker group are 
easily transferable to other positions in the local area.
    In the request for reconsideration, the company official 
resubmitted correct employment numbers which show that a significant 
number or proportion of the worker group of the subject firm are fifty 
years of age or older. The company official also provided new 
information confirming that the skills of the workers at the subject 
firm are not easily transferable in the local commuting area.
    Additional investigation has determined that the workers possess 
skills that are not easily transferable. A significant number or 
proportion of the worker group are age fifty years or over. Competitive 
conditions within the industry are adverse.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained on 
reconsideration, I conclude that the requirements of Section 246 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met for workers at the subject 
firm.
    In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following 
certification:

    All workers of Airtex Products LP, including on-site leased 
workers of Staffmark and Aid Temporary Services, Inc., Marked Tree, 
Arkansas, who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after October 20, 2005 through January 24, 2009, are eligible 
to apply for trade adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974 and are also eligible to apply for alternative 
trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 
1974.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 21st day of February, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-3460 Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3993]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-44-004]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of 
Filing

March 1, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 15, 2007, ConocoPhillips Company filed 
a request for clarification of the February 13, 2006 Commission Order 
or, in the alternative, request for waiver and cost justification of 
certain limited wholesale sales made in July 2006 at prices that 
exceeded the soft bid cap established by the February 13, 2006 Order.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#296f6c7b6a66474540474c7a5c5959465b5d694f4c5b4a074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="63252631202c0d0f0a0d06301613130c111723050611004d040c15">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 12, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3993 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

THERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

No. CIV S-04-1800 DFL CMK P

 

 ORDER

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and

serve objections to the March 6, 2006 findings and

recommendations. Good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered

that: 

1. Plaintiff’s March 15, 2006 request for an extension of

time is granted in part; and 

2. Plaintiff has until Thursday, March 30, 2006 to file and

serve objections to the March 6, 2006 findings and

recommendations. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 100 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/22/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 100 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Paul K. Laikind, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer ofMetabasis Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to myknowledge:

 

1.The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30,2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company forthe period covered by the Report.

 
|   | Date:  November 10, 2008 | By:    | /s/  Paul K. Laikind                                                                |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                          |   | Paul  K. Laikind, Ph.D., *Chief Executive Officer**Interim Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
##### 



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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 10, 2007By:
    
    /s/ S. TREZEVANT MOORES. Trezevant MooreChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Clarence Montgomery,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Tom L. Carey,

Defendant.

No. Civ. S 04-1529 LKK PAN P

Order

-oOoMarch 17, 2005, the court directed plaintiff to submit

information for serving process on defendant Carey. He has not. 

Accordingly, plaintiff shall show cause, within 10 days, why his

claims against defendant Carey should not be dismissed. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring service of summons and complaint upon

defendant within 120 days of the filing of the complaint). 

So ordered.

Dated: May 10, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01529-LKK -PAN Document 4 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 49657.

#### Protest 97604-K of Saul N. Ades (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

When this case was called for trial counsel for plaintiff stated that the question of allowance involved was one that was within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury rather than that of the U. S. Customs Court. A motion was made to dismiss the protest without prejudice, with the consent of Government counsel. This motion was granted by the judge sitting on circuit. When the case, under the rules of this court, regularly came before the Third Division for decision it was found that the entry was liquidated July 31, 1942, and the protest was not filed with the collector until September 30, 1942. In view of section 514 and the fact that the protest was filed 61 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3956]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as Amended by Public Law 104-13; 
Proposed Collection, Comment Request

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The proposed information collection described below will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 
as amended). The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public 
comments on this proposed collection as provided by 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1). 
Requests for information, including copies of the information 
collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be directed to 
the Agency Clearance Officer: Alice D. Witt, Tennessee Valley 
Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB 5B), Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-
2801; (423) 751-6832. (SC:0019QYX) Comments should be sent to the 
Agency Clearance Officer no later than May 7, 2007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Title of Information Collection: Employment Application.
    Frequency of Use: On Occasion.
    Type of Affected Public: Individuals.
    Small Businesses or Organizations Affected: NO.
    Federal Budget Functional Category Code: 999.
    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 31,500.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 31,500.
    Estimated Average Burden Hours per Response: 1.
    Need For and Use of Information: Applications for employment are 
needed to collect information on qualifications, suitability for 
employment, and eligibility for veteran's preference. The information 
is used to make comparative appraisals and to assist in selections. The 
affected public consists of individuals who apply for TVA employment.

Terry G. Tyler,
General Manager Architecture, Planning, & Compliance Information 
Services.
 [FR Doc. E7-3956 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
# C_2006298EN.01001301.xml

| 8.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/13

---

Notification of a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC

(2006/C 298/07)

Request from a Member State

On 20 November 2006 the Commission received a request under Article 30(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The first working day following receipt of the request was 21 November 2006.

1

The request, from Denmark, concerns mail services relating to parcels in Denmark. Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC stipulates that the Directive shall not apply if the activity in question is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. Assessment of these conditions shall be made exclusively under Directive 2004/17/EC and without prejudice to application of the rules on competition.

The Commission has a three-month period from 21 November 2006, i.e. until 21 February 2007, within which to take a decision on this request.

The third subparagraph of Article 30(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC applies. Consequently, the period within which the Commission must take a decision may be extended by one month. Such an extension would be subject to publication.

---

(1)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1. Directive as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1874/2004 (OJ L 326, 29.10.2004, p. 17).

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 8656)

Entry No. 907172.

#### Bluefries New York, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided September 26, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ekwall, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> *513IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that

> 1. The merchandise covered by the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement consists of milk hazelnut bars exported from Holland, the same in all material respects as those in *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 8470, wherein it was held that cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of value.

> 2. The record in said Reap. Dec. 8470 may be incorporated herein.

> 3. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved in the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement, there was no foreign value or export value or United States value for such or similar merchandise as defined in Sec. 402, Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, and the cost of production is therefore the proper basis of value.

> 4. The cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f), (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, for the milk hazelnut bars covered by the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement is 93.21 Netherlands Guilder per carton for cartons containing 576 bars, and 94.07 Netherlands Guilder per carton for cartons containing 600 bars.

> 5. The above appeal for reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation and is limited to the items set forth above, and abandoned as to all other items.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the milk hazelnut bars here involved, and that such values were 93.21 Netherland guilders per carton for cartons containing 576 bars, and 94.07 Netherland guilders per carton for cartons containing 600 bars.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY HAMMONDS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0909 MCE GGH P

vs.

I. REYES, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On January 25, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for clarification of the pretrial order

filed January 10, 2006. Plaintiff states that the pretrial order instructs the parties to exchange

exhibits at the trial confirmation hearing, but does not schedule this hearing. 

No trial confirmation hearing is scheduled in this action. The jury trial is set for

March 22, 2006.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The statement in the pretrial order directing the parties to exchange exhibits at

the trial confirmation hearing is stricken;

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00909-MCE -GGH Document 71 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

2. On or before March 10, 2006, the parties shall have served each other with

their respective trial exhibits

DATED: 3/1/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

ham909.cla

Case 2:04-cv-00909-MCE -GGH Document 71 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 2
**Docket Number: FA A**  **- 2012**  **- 0291**
**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**

| (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                Partnership. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Freddie M. Kotek                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Freddie                M. Kotek                                        |
| Title: | Chief                Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  | November                13, 2006                                       |