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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39601

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

THOMAS MICHAEL CHEW,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 348

Filed: January 29, 2013

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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 T. Mitchell, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, 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 respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Thomas Michael Chew was convicted of stalking in the first degree, Idaho Code § 18-

7905. The district court imposed a five-year determinate sentence and retained jurisdiction. At 

the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the district court relinquished jurisdiction 

and ordered execution of Chew’s sentence, sua sponte reducing it to a unified five-year term with 

four years determinate. Chew appeals the district court’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction.

The decision as to whether to place a defendant on probation or, instead, to relinquish 

jurisdiction is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 

205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). It follows that a decision to relinquish 

jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. State v. Chapman, 
2

120 Idaho 466, 472, 816 P.2d 1023, 1029 (Ct. App. 1991). Idaho Code § 19-2521 sets out the 

criteria a court must consider when deciding whether to grant probation or impose imprisonment. 

A decision to deny probation will not be held to represent an abuse of discretion if the decision is 

consistent with the Section 19-2521 standards. State v. Merwin, 131 Idaho 642, 962 P.2d 1026 

(1998). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information 

before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. Therefore, we hold that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion. 

The order relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.
July 5, 1939

No. 41814.

#### Protests 886345-G, etc., of Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al.

C. D. 171. Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing

denied.
December 4, 1946

No. 51459.

#### Protests 112155-K, etc., of Maurice Lobsitz.

Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT
32


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350








In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of the smaller reporting
company of Hybrid Dynamics Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark
Klein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(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.








By: /s/ MARK
KLEIN


Mark Klein


Chief Executive Officer


Hybrid Dynamics Corporation





Date:
August 12, 2009
Exhibit 23.01

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-60430, 333-38696, 333-151882, 333-160680 and 333-168436) and in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-160679) of our reports dated March 3, 2011, with respect to the financial statements of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Denver,
Colorado
March 3, 2011

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                        [RYDER SCOTT COMPANY LETTERHEAD]



                      CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.


         We consent to the use on the Form 10-KSB of PrimeEnergy Corporation of
our reserve report and all schedules, exhibits, and attachments thereto
incorporated by reference of Form 10-KSB and to any reference made to us on Form
10-KSB as a result of such incorporation.


                                            Very truly yours,

                                            /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
                                            RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.


Denver, Colorado
March 20, 2000
No. 50098.

#### Protests 106499-K, etc., of E. Dillingham, Inc. (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Exhibit 1, known as an “arctic jacket,” has an outer shell composed mainly of a cotton cloth known as “Stifel Cloth,” and an inner shell of the same shape as the outer shell, consisting of a body lining made of 40 percent cotton and 60 percent rayon, with an interlining composed of four sections of a cotton quilted material filled with down. The outer and inner shells are made separately and then joined together, after which certain finishing operations are performed. From the evidence it appeared that the cost to the manufacturer of labor and material attributable to the cotton of both the inner and outer shells was considerably higher than the cost attributable to the down. Counsel for the respective parties agreed that the rule for determining the component material of chief value under the circumstances of the case at bar is that expressed in *United States*v. *Bacharach*(18 C. C. P. A. 353, T. D. 44612). *(United States*v. *Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co.,*19 C. C. P. A. 232, T. D. 45337, cited.) On the record presented, it was held that the component material of chief value of the merchandise was cotton, and the claim under paragraph 919 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 32.1

CASH 4 HOMES 247

Certifications

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Giant Motorsports, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), theundersigned, in the capacity indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company as of and for the period covered in the Report.

/s/Gordon Forgey  Gordon Forgey   President and ChiefFinancial Officer

Date: August 19, 2004
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

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-2245 LKK KJM P 

vs.

TOM L. CAREY,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief

if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be directed to file an

answer.

Petitioner has asked that this case be consolidated with a California Supreme

Court case. The court generally cannot consolidate a federal action with a state action. There

does not appear to be any reason justifying consolidation in this case. Petitioner’s motion will be

denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. Respondents are directed to file an answer within sixty days from the date of

Case 2:04-cv-02245-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 12/08/05 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

this order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondents shall include with the

answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues

presented in the application. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases;

3. Petitioner's traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date

respondents’ answer is filed;

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus on Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney

General; and

5. Petitioner’s May 25, 2005 motion to consolidate is denied.

DATED: December 7, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

wood2245.100(5.25.05)

Case 2:04-cv-02245-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-1484V

UNPUBLISHED

MITZI LEE,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 19, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Acute Inflammatory Demyelinating

Polyneuropathy (AIDP); Bell’s Palsy;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS);

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Laurie Wiesner, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 28, 2020, Mitzi Lee filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered acute inflammatory demyelinating

polyneuropathy (AIDP), a form of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), and Bell’s Palsy which 

was caused in fact by the influenza vaccine she received on November 11, 2018. Petition 

at 1, ¶¶ 2, 12. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccination in the United 

States, that she suffered the residual effects of her GBS for more than six months and 

that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for 

her GBS, alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 13-15. The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

On April 19, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. 

Specifically, Respondent believes “that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in 

the revised Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to interpretation 

(QAI).” Id. at 8. Respondent further agrees that “based on the current record, [P]etitioner 

has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
No. 54676.

#### Cheese Importing Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 48022-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Edam process-cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Dutch Cheese Importers Co.*v. *United States*(23 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1197), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the quarterly report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Frank Rovito, CEO and CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Frank Rovito

Frank RovitoCEO and CFODated: March 22, 2010

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8015** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ONEIL MARKEITH WATSON , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easte rn District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith , District Judge. ( 2:08

- cr - 00045

- RBS

- FBS

- 1; 2:09

- cv - 00195

- RBS

- FBS )

Submitted : May 26, 2010 Decided: June 8 , 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un publis hed per curiam opinion
. Oneil Markeith Watson, Appellant Pro Se. D. Monique Broadnax, Special Assistant United States Attorney, James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Oneil Markeith Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a ce rtificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Watson’s motion for transcript s at the Government’s expense, deny a certificate of appealab ility , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
San Luis Obispo County APCD 209-1 11/5/91

RULE 209. PROVISION FOR SAMPLING AND TESTING FACILI TIES (Adopted 8/2/76; Revised 11/5/91)

The Air Pollution Control Officer may require a per son operating or using any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, the use of which ma y cause the issuance of air contaminants or the use of which may eliminate, reduce or control t he issuance of air contaminants to provide and maintain such facilities as are necessary for sampl ing and testing. In the event of such requirements the Air Pollution Control Officer shal l notify the person in writing of the required size, number and location of sampling ports; the si ze and location of sampling platform; the access to the sampling platform; and the utilities for operating the sampling and testing equipment. The platform and access shall be constr ucted in accordance with the General Industry Safety Orders of the State of California.
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

JAMES RAY WILEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1922 MCE KJM P

vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

By an order filed June 3, 2005, this court directed the United States Marshal to

serve all process without prepayment of costs. On August 31, 2005 and September 28, 2005, the

Marshal filed executed waivers of service for the three defendants. None of them has filed a

responsive pleading. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants Pliler, Narramore and Wooten show cause, within twenty days

from the date of this order, why default should not be entered; 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of this order to defendant Cheryl

Pliler, Warden, and Officers Wooten and Narramore, California State Prison Sacramento, P.O.

Box 290002, Represa, California 95671; and

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01922-MCE -KJM Document 16 Filed 12/14/05 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

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Michael G. 

Lee, Deputy Attorney General.

DATED: December 13, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

wile1922.77d

Case 2:04-cv-01922-MCE -KJM Document 16 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 2
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-123 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Cooperation 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and FRANCE 

Signed at Paris 

January 22 and 23, 2003 

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.” 
FRANCE 

Defense: Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Paris 

 January 22 and 23, 2003; 

 Entered into force January 23, 2003. 

 With annexes.
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 Company.
 /s/ John A. BardisJohn A. BardisChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer November 6, 2009/s/ L. Neil HunnL. Neil HunnExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer November 6, 2009
Exhibit 99.3
**DISCLOSURE AND INTERNAL CONTROLS REPORT**
Management of Sun Life Financial Services of Canada Inc. (the Company),including its Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, haveevaluated the effectiveness of the Company ‘s disclosure controls andprocedures as of December 31, 2002 (the “Evaluation Date”) and have concludedthat these disclosure controls and procedures were operating effectively in theaggregate.
During 2002, the Company’s United States operations were involved inintegrating the business operations arising from the acquisition of KeyportLife Insurance Company (Keyport). Keyport’s internal controls did not meet theCompany’s standards, particularly with respect to account reconciliations, andcorrective action was undertaken. There has been a significant improvement inthis regard, but the corrective action is not yet complete.
The Company’s Canadian operations are currently involved in integrating thebusiness operations arising from the acquisition of Clarica Life InsuranceCompany (“Clarica”). This integration is designed to combine operationalstrengths through selecting the best processes from the organisations that arebeing integrated. Both had appropriate internal control processes in place atthe commencement of the integration. During the integration of Clarica, therehave been, and will continue to be, significant changes in internal controls.These changes are being managed through the development, execution andmonitoring of comprehensive integration plans. Furthermore, the businessenvironment in which this integration is occurring is also subject to constantchange.
Although the Company’s Canadian operations are currently undergoing anintegration, we are not aware of any significant changes in the Company’sinternal controls or in other factors that could significantly adversely affectthe Company’s internal controls subsequent to the Evaluation Date, nor havethere been any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies ormaterial weaknesses since the Evaluation Date, other than the continuing workon Keyport referred to above.