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

Docket No. 45839

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

DAVID PAUL LEE ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: February 12, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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, Gem County. Hon. George A. Southworth , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years with three years determinate for stalking in the first degree with a persistent violator enhancement

, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

David Paul Lee was found guilty of s talking in the first degree , Idaho Code § 18

- 7905

, with a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. § 19

- 2514 . The district court imposed a unified

sentence of eight years with three years determinate

. Lee appeals, contending that his sentence is

excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s disc retion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Lee ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
(Reap. Dec. 8549)

#### Taub, Hummel & Schnall, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 710422.

(Decided February 21, 1956)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

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

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issue in the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above is the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues decided in the case of *United States*v. *Nelson Bead Co.,*C. A. D. 590, and that the record in said case be incorporated and made a part of the record herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised value of the merchandise covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above, less the addition made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for *536shipment to the United States, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was the appraised value, less the addition made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Local.com Corporation;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 officer(s) 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)) [language omitted pursuant to SEC Release 34-47086] 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 us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release 34-47986];c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our 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; andd)
    
    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; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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; andb)
    
    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.
 Date: November 5, 2007
    
    /s/ Douglas S. NormanDouglas S. NormanChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
3200 Southwest Freeway
Houston, Texas 77027-7528
P.O. Box 1370
Houston, Texas 77251-1370
Telephone 713/543-6500

(LOGO) BANK UNITED


Management Assertion

As of and for the year ended September 30, 1999, Bank United and  subsidiaries'
(the "Bank") has complied in all material respects  with the minimum  servicing
standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform
Single Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same year,
the Bank had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the
amount of $40,000,000 and $25,000,000, respectively.

Anthony J. Nocella
CFO & Vice Chairman
October 26, 1999

Jonathan K. Heffron
COO, Executive Vice President
and General Counsel
October 26, 1999
No. 62611.

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

protest 298215-K (New York).

*454Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
(LOGO) FARMERS STATE BANK & TRUST

Management Assertion

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1999, Farmers State Bank and Trust Co.
of Superior  (the Bank) has complied in all material  respects  with the minimum
servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers  Association of America's
Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same
period, the Bank had in effect a fidelity bond in the amount of $2,275,000 and a
Mortgage Errors and Omissions Policy in the amount of $1,000,000.


Edward J. Meekins, Vice President

Date: January 14,2000

P.O. Box 263 Superior, Nebraska 68973-0263 * Fax 402-879-4895 *
Phone 402-879-3271
EXHIBIT
31.2



CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Tom Virgin, certify that:





|1. | I
    have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 (the "Amendment") to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ominto, Inc.;                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|2. | Based
    on my knowledge, this Amendment  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 Annual Report;





|January
    25, 2016 |                   
|-------------------- | ------------------
|                     |                   
|                     | /s/
    TOM VIRGIN
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 on Form 10-Q of Local.com Corporation (the Company) for the period ended
June 30, 2012 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                   
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2012 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Heath B. Clarke                                                               
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Heath B. Clarke                                                                   
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and Chairman                
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Kenneth S. Cragun                                                             
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Kenneth S. Cragun                                                                 
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer) and Secretary

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### City *of*Hollywood, a municipal corporation, *et al.,*v. State, *ex rel.*Ralph M. Winters, a resident of Lucas County, Ohio.

176 So. 77.

No. 3055

Opinion Filed May 12, 1937.

*Julian E. Ross, C. H. Landefeld, Jr., R. R. Saunders*and *Rogers, Morris & Griffin,*for Plaintiffs in Error;

*Hope Strong, Casey & Walton*and *William K. Whitfield*(of Tallahassee), for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause comirlg on to be heard upon rehearing and the Court having heard the arguments of counsel and read and considered the briefs of the parties herein, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the judgment and that accordingly the said judgment should be and the same is now ordered affirmed.

But it appearing to the Court that it is necessary that the relators below do amend their peremptory writ of mandamus, so as to make the same applicable to a current tax roll, and to the present officials in office of the respondent, *253in order that the same shall be an effective writ, it is further ordered that said affirmance of the judgment is with leave to'make such amendments in the Court below as will make the judgment for a peremptory writ of mandamus an effective judgment for the protection and enforcement of relators’ rights in the premises.

And it further appearing to the Court by petition of the defendant in error that the respondents below are desirous of presenting to and having considered by the Circuit Court an application for a modification of the strict enforcement of the peremptory writ of mandamus, if and as amended as aforesaid, in accordance with the principles declared by this Court in the following case recently here decided: City of Sarasota, *et al.,*v. State of Florida, *ex rel.*R. W. Evans, opinion filed February 16, 1937; it is thereupon further considered, ordered and adjudged that the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby permitted to decide and determine, upon proper applicatipn, whether or not it shall stay the issuance or modify the enforcement of the peremptory writ of mandamus, judgment for which is hereby affirmed, in accordance with equitable principles, in order to permit the respondents to successfully complete their refunding operations if possible, retaining jurisdiction of such cause on its docket for such further appropriate orders as may be consistent with law and justice.

Let judgment be entered accordingly and mandate issued in conformity therewith.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brqwn, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
# C_2007302EN.01000301.xml

| 14.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/3

---

State aids — Decisions to propose appropriate measures pursuant to Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty where the Member State concerned has accepted those measures

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 302/04)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 22.3.2006 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | E 22/04 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Ayuda fiscal a la exportación |
| Legal basis | Art. 37 y 23 del Real Decreto Legislativo no 4.2004, de 5 de marzo, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Export and internationalisation |
| Form of aid | Tax allowance, Tax base reduction |
| Budget | — |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | Unlimited |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda, Madrid |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

22.3.2006

Reference number of the aid

E 22/04

Member State

Spain

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Ayuda fiscal a la exportación

Legal basis

Art. 37 y 23 del Real Decreto Legislativo no 4.2004, de 5 de marzo, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades

o

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Export and internationalisation

Form of aid

Tax allowance, Tax base reduction

Budget

—

Intensity

—

Duration

Unlimited

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda, Madrid

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
**CONFORMED**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES – OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In connection with the Annual Report of Connecticut Bancshares, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Richard P. Meduski, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002, 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.     | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of andfor the period covered by the Report. |

 

|   | /s/ RICHARD P. MEDUSKI                                                                                    |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                                           |   |
|   | **Richard P. Meduski President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) March 24, 2003** |   |
**MA TERI**  **AL S NOT INCLUDED IN**  **AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **2012 -**  **1014** Docket Number

**2010 -**  **SW -**  **058 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Eurocopter Ale rt Service Bulletin No. 34.00.31, Revision 1, dated July 28, 2010.

**MA Y BE VIEWED A** 

**T:** Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137
**DURING THE HOURS OF:**  9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
No. 49693.

#### Protests 24851-K, etc., of Vincent Marano et al. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and cited cases, the records in which were incorporated herein, the following allowances were made by the court to compensate for foreign substances on the outside of certain cheese: (1) 2% percent for cheese similar in all material respects to Pecorino Romano and Pecorino Romano Sardo cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284) and (2) 1 percent for Reggiano cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389).
Before the First Division,

May 12, 1955

No. 59041.

protests 485548-G, etc. (New York).

#### J. H. Bleistein, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lambskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1643, *supra.*
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM S. NELSON, Jr., Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 184, 43 CMR 24

No. 23,344

December 4, 1970

*Lieutenant George F. McGunnigle, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*185
      *Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keener,*USMC, and *Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

The military judge in this case granted the appellant’s written request to be tried by military judge alone without further inquiry whether the request was “understandingly made.” (Paragraph 53d(2)(6), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition).) The omission is nonprejudicial, however. United States v Jenkins, 20 USCMA 112, 42 CMR 304 (1970), and United States v Turner, 20 USCMA 167, 43 CMR 7 (1970).

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

I would reverse the decision of the Court of Military Review and direct that a rehearing may be ordered for the reasons set forth in my separate opinions in United States v Jenkins, 20 USCMA 112, 42 CMR 304 (1970), and United States v Turner, 20 USCMA 167, 43 CMR 7 (1970).