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

Docket No s
. 41223/41224

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

CHRISONDRA ANN CANADY ,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 442

Filed: April 9, 2014

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Lansing L. Haynes , District Judge.

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

.

Sara B. Thomas, Sta te Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, Chrisondra Ann Canady pled guilty to two counts of
burglary

, Idaho Code § § 18

- 2403(1), 18

- 2407(1)(b) (Docket No.41223) ; and two counts of grand

theft, I.C. § § 18

- 2403(1), 18

- 2407(1)(b) (Docket No. 41224)

. The district court sentenced
Canady to concurrent unified terms of five years with two years determinate, suspended the
sentences and placed Canady on supervised probation for three years. Canady admitted to

violatin g the terms of her probation which the district court revoked and ordered the underlying
sentenced executed, but retained jurisdiction. The district court later relinquished jurisdiction.
Canady filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion s in both cases , which t he district court denied.2 Canady appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying her Rule 35

motions

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

addressed to the sound discretion of th e court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Gill , 150 Idaho 183, 186, 244 P.3d 1269, 1272 (Ct. App. 2010). In
presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of

new or addi tional 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 rev iew of the
record, including any new information submitted with Canday ’s Rule 35 motion s , we conclude
no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Canady ’s

Rule 35 motion s is affirmed.
Exhibit 13

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 annual report of City Telecom (H.K.) Limited (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, 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 the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                         |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: January 28, 2008 |  |                         |  |                        
|                       |  | /s/ Wong Wai Kay, Ricky
|                       |  | Name:                   |  | Wong Wai Kay, Ricky    
|                       |  | Title:                  |  | Chairman               
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ Lai Ni Quiaque     
|                       |  | Name:                   |  | Lai Ni Quiaque         
|                       |  | Title:                  |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20498 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TERA YVETTE CHANEY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-199-ALL

-------------------- December 12, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Tera Yvette Chaney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Chaney has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Chaney’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
EXHIBIT 6

CONSENT OF APPOINTED ACTUARY

I consent to the use and incorporation by reference of the
following report in this Annual Form 40-F of Sun Life Financial Inc.:

My report dated February 12, 2014 on the valuation of the policy
liabilities and reinsurance recoverables of Sun Life Financial Inc. and its subsidiaries for its Consolidated Statements of Financial Position at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 and their change in the Consolidated Statements of Operations
for the year ended December 31, 2013 in accordance with accepted actuarial practice, including selection of appropriate assumptions and methods.

Dated February 12, 2014



|                                        |  | 
|--------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Larry Madge                       |  | 
|                                        | 
|Larry Madge                             |  | 
|                                        | 
|Fellow, Canadian Institute of Actuaries |  | 
|Toronto, Canada                         |  |
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Michael D. Stern, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2004;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



5.
The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Michael D. Stern,   
|Chief Executive Officer 
|                        
|Date: September 24, 2004
**Exhibit23.2**

**Consent of Independent****Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors

Witness Systems, Inc.:

 

Weconsent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.333-33250, No. 333-107236, No. 333-67416, No. 333-122411, and No. 333-127397)on Form S-8 and in the registration statement (No. 333-122410) on Form S-3 ofWitness Systems, Inc. of our reports dated March 16, 2006, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of Witness Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cashflows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005,and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual reporton Form 10-K of Witness Systems, Inc. Our report dated March 16, 2006, on management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2005, expresses our opinion that Witness Systems, Inc. did not maintaineffective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005because of the effect of a material weakness on the achievement of theobjectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph thatstates that:  The Company’s policies andprocedures over account reconciliations and management’s reviews of estimatesand account balances were not designed to a sufficient level of precision toprevent or detect misstatements that could have a material effect on theconsolidated financial statements.  As aresult, there were errors to the consolidated financial statements that werenot identified or recorded by management. This deficiency resulted in more than a remote likelihood that amaterial misstatement to the consolidated financial statements would not beprevented or detected.  

 

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP     |   |   |
|------------------|--------|--------|
|             |
| Atlanta, Georgia |
| March 16, 2006   |

 

----
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DANIEL W. FAERFERS and KATJA

FAERFERS,

NO. CIV. S 04-2690 MCE PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

CAVIAR CREATOR, INC., a Nevada

Corporation, individually and

as successor to CAVIAR

CREATOR, INC., an Oregon

Corporation,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On June 16, 2005, Defendant Caviar Creator, Inc., a Nevada

Corporation, moved to dismiss, with prejudice, Plaintiffs’ Third

Claim, for fraud. Defendant’s motion is premised on grounds that

Plaintiffs’ Third Claim fails to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6).

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02690-TLN-EFB Document 24 Filed 07/18/05 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

27

28

2

Plaintiffs filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to

Defendant’s Motion on June 11, 2005. Given that non-opposition,

and good cause appearing therefor, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs’ Third Claim, for fraud, is hereby dismissed, with

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 18, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02690-TLN-EFB Document 24 Filed 07/18/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4731 

To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to provide for food-based 

interventions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2024 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to provide 

for food-based interventions. 

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 ‘‘Disease Intervention 

5 through Nutrition Education Act’’ or the ‘‘DINE Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FOOD-BASED INTERVENTIONS. 

7 (a) DEFINITION OF DISEASE PREVENTION AND

8 HEALTH PROMOTION SERVICES.—Section 102(14) of the 

9 Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3002(14)) is 

10 amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4731 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘screen2 ing for eligibility for Federal and non-Federal (in3 cluding community-based) food is medicine programs 

4 and’’ before ‘‘routine’’; 

5 (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘‘, includ6 ing referrals to Federal and non-Federal (including 

7 community-based) food is medicine programs, if ap8 propriate’’ after ‘‘caregivers’’; and 

9 (3) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ‘‘(includ10 ing from medically tailored meals and produce pre11 scriptions)’’ after ‘‘improved nutrition’’. 

12 (b) ADMINISTRATION OF NUTRITION SERVICES.— 

13 Section 205(a)(2)(A) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 

14 (42 U.S.C. 3016(a)(2)(A)) is amended— 

15 (1) in clause (vi), by inserting ‘‘, including the 

16 use of innovative approaches, including food-based 

17 interventions, such as produce prescriptions’’ after 

18 ‘‘systems’’; and 

19 (2) in clause (viii), by inserting ‘‘and innovative 

20 approaches, including intervention programs, such as 

21 produce prescriptions,’’ after ‘‘including strategies’’. 

22 (c) NUTRITION EDUCATION.—Section 214(2)(C) of 

23 the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3020e(2)(C)) 

24 is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4731 IS

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘interventions and’’ after 

2 ‘‘other’’; and 

3 (2) by inserting ‘‘and referral to food-based 

4 intervention programs’’ after ‘‘and counseling’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7268

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER CHARLES LATHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-94-28, CA-98-511-R)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Charles Latham, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall

Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Charles Latham seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Latham,

Nos. CR-94-28; CA-98-511-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 13, 1998). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31**

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Michael J. Koss, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Koss Corporation;

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.             Iam responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under mysupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.             Ihave disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

Date:  September6, 2006
| /s/ Michael J. Koss                     |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael J. Koss                         |
| Chief Executive  Officer, President and |
| Chief Financial  Officer                |

 

----
# C_2006052EN.01000301.xml

| 2.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/3

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP /M.3178 — Bertelsmann/Springer

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2006/C 52/03)

On 4 November 2004 the Commission received notification of a proposed merger by which the undertakings Bertelsmann AG (Germany), its solely controlled subsidiary Gruner+Jahr AG & Co. KG (Germany), and Axel Springer AG (Germany), acquire joint control of the undertaking NewCo by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

Having examined the information submitted by the parties to the proposed merger and conducted a market survey, the Commission concluded that the merger raised serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market and the EEA Agreement. On 23 December 2004, therefore, the Commission initiated the procedure provided for by Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

Following a detailed market investigation, the Commission concluded that the proposed concentration did not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it, in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, and that it did not restrict competition within the meaning of Article 2 (4) of the Merger Regulation and Article 81 of the Treaty. Accordingly, no statement of objections was sent to the parties. In the course of the market investigation, the parties were granted access to key documents under section 7.2 of DG Competition Best Practices on the conduct of merger control proceedings.

The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 27 April 2005.

Karen WILLIAMS

---
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-618 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Cooperation 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and OTHER GOVERNMENTS 

Signed at Paris June 14 and 18, 2007 

 

 with 

 Annexes
 

NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 

 MULTILATERAL 

 Defense: Cooperation 

Memorandum of understanding signed at Paris 

 June 14 and 18, 2007; 

Entered into force June 18, 2007. 

With annexes. 









































NOTE: It is noted that this page should be numbered "42". NOTE: Only English language will be printed in this publication.
No. 59585.

protests 232427-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.