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

Docket No. 44438

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

SCOTT MAXWELL RIGGS ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 462

Filed: May 12, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jason D. Scott , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Scott Maxwell Riggs pleaded guilty to sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or
seventeen years of age, Idaho C ode § 18

- 1508A . The district court imposed a unified fifteen

year sentence, with three years determinate

. Riggs appeals, contending that his sentence is

excessive.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. 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

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

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.2 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.

Th erefore, Riggs ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT

      I, Gina Tedesco, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Astralis Ltd.;

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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)) for the small business issuer and
have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or cause such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
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) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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; and

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

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


<PAGE>


      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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.


Date:  March 29, 2004                      /s/ Gina Tedesco
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Name:  Gina Tedesco
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS 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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of American DefenseSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Anthony Piscitelli, Chief Executive Officer, Presidentand Chairman of the Company and Gary Sidorsky, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our best knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Date: April  15, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Anthony Piscitelli                           |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Anthony Piscitelli                               |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer,  President and Chairman |
|                  |   |                                             |
|                  |   |                                             |
|                  | By:    | /s/ Gary Sidorsky                                |
|                  |   | Gary Sidorsky                                    |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer                          |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40959

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALBINO OCAMPO-ABARCA, also known as David Mata,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-778-1

Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Albino OcampoAbarca has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ocampo-Abarca has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 17, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40959 Document: 00512666123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2014
No. 13-40959

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-40959 Document: 00512666123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2014
Anthony J. Pucciarella

ALARIS

PO Box 1835

Lusby, MD 20657

240.538.8444

Tony@TeamAlaris.com

13 February 2016

United States Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Additional information requested by FAA for Docket No. FAA-2015-4549

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please accept this letter in response to the e-mail from Ms. Leah Werner on 11 February 2016

in reference to Docket FAA-2015-4549. In the e-mail, Ms. Werner stated:

“Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is 

required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without 

this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of 

your intention by the requested response date listed below.”

The original exemption petition in the referenced docket states that Senord is not requesting 

permission for closed-set filming. Specifically, item #2 on page 5 of petition letter dated 22 

August 2015 states:

“2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are not

permitted. “

To reiterate, Senord is not requesting permission for closed-set filming. Please contact me at 

your earliest convenience if there are any questions. 

Sincerely,

Anthony J. Pucciarella

ALARIS
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00 372

- CV

TOM FRANKLIN APPELLANT

V.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 236 TH DISTRICT COURT O F TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

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

Appellant Tom Franklin attempts a pro se appeal of t he tri a l court’s

September 20, 2011 order granting a ppellee U.S. Bank National Ass ociation’s

motion for nonsuit.

On December 28, 2011, we sent appellant a letter informing him of our

concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the t rial court’s order

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

granting appellee’s motion for nonsuit did not appear to be an appeala ble order.

We stated that unless appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed

with the court on or before January 9, 2012 , a response showing grounds for

continuing the appeal, we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appella nt has filed a response, but it does not show grounds to continue

the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. 2 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),

43.2(f); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim , 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010) (stating

that a nonsuit renders the meri ts of the nonsuited case moot); see also City of

Dallas v. Albert , No. 07

- 0284, 2011 WL 3796339, at *5 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2011)

(stating that when a claim is nonsuited, the controversy as to that claim is

extinguished, the merits become moot, and jurisdiction as to the claim is lost).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY

, MEIER, and GABRIEL

, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 26, 2012

2 We need not address the grounds presented in appellee’s December 2,

2011 motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction , rendered moot by our resolution

here.
Before the Third Division,

October 5, 1950

No. 54730.

#### J. Ossola Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 151635-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chestnuts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Naumes Forwarding Service*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 93, C. D. 1214), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1646 was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Williams, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 316]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his request for a *Wade*hearing. We conclude that the viewing of a photograph of defendant from the file by the officer who purchased cocaine from defendant on two separate occasions did not entitle defendant to a *Wade*hearing. If the undercover officer viewed the *954photograph before his first encounter with defendant, the People were not required to provide a notice of identification *(see,*CPL 710.30 [1]). If the officer viewed the photograph between the first and second encounters, any hint of suggestiveness was dissipated when the officer observed defendant during a second face-to-face drug transaction; that second encounter, along with several telephonic communications with defendant, establishes assurances of reliability obviating the need for a *Wade*hearing *(see, People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921, 923).

Given defendant’s extensive criminal history, we decline to exercise our power to modify defendant’s sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
**Background:**

A m aterial whose composition was examined in #1409 043 consisted of * reacted with a small amount of *. A question was posed as to *

. T his LC/MS analy sis was performed with
-------- in order to examine this question. **LC/MS method:** Solvent: A= * Gradient: * Flow rate: * Colum n: * Colum n temp: * °C Inj vol: * μL Ionization: * Instrument: * Sam ple preparation: *

* shows prominent molecular ions (probably [M+H] + ) at m/zvalues of * , * and * (Fig. 1). T hese are *

. G PC and LC/MS data suggest that *. The m/zvalues observed *. The fact that samples * suggests that *

.
#### Johnson Bros. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7293.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, December 1945, etc.

Certified December 31, 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 24, 1946, etc.

Entry Nos. 734827; 709373.

(Decided June 18, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King,*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

*189On 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 values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 59079.

protest 249547-K (New York).

#### American Thermo-Ware Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, 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)).
**CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**
 
 I, Christopher
Paton-Gay , certify
that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB of *Turner
Valley Oil & Gas, Inc.* ;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this Annual 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 Annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)
    designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures 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 Annual report is being
      prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
  c)
    presented
      in this Annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
      Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this Annual
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 
 Dated
April 14, 2005
 
 
 /s/Christopher Paton-Gay
 Christopher
Paton-Gay
 president/director/Sole
Officer
No. 46794.

#### Protest 73011-K of New York Mdse. Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the dime savings banks in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 42749 the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
Exhibit 23.2








INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT














The Board
of Directors


Ableauctions.com,
Inc.








We
consent to the use in the Financial Statements for the years ended December 31,
2008 and 2007 of Ableauctions.com, Inc. of our
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 24, 2008 on
the balance sheet of Ableauctions.com, Inc. as at December 31, 2007, and the
related statements of operations, comprehensive income, cash flows and
stockholders’ equity for the year then ended.











/s/
STS
PARTNERS
LLP





STS
PARTNERS LLP


CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS


Vancouver
BC


March 18,
2009
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5808]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL-8293-1]


Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Extension of the 
Reformulated Gasoline Program to the East St. Louis, IL Ozone 
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA published a direct final rule on December 27, 2006, to 
extend the reformulated gasoline program to the Illinois portion of the 
St. Louis Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area effective as of 
May 1, 2007. However, we received an adverse comment during the 30 day 
comment period and are now withdrawing that direct final rule.

DATES: As of March 29, 2007, EPA withdraws the direct final rule 
published at 71 FR 77615, on December 27, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt Gustafson at (202) 343-9219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are 
withdrawing the direct final rule for ``Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 
Additives: Extension of the Reformulated Gasoline Program to the East 
St. Louis, Illinois Ozone Nonattainment Area.'' We published the direct 
final rule on December 27, 2006 (71 FR 77615), that would have approved 
the State of Illinois's request to opt-in to the Federal Reformulated 
Gasoline Program effective as of May 1, 2007. That action would have 
amended our regulations to make the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, 
Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area a covered area and prohibit 
the sale of conventional gasoline. We stated in that Federal Register 
document that if we received adverse comment by January 26, 2007, we 
would publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register. We 
subsequently received an adverse comment.
    We will address the comment in a subsequent final action based on 
the parallel proposal also published on December 27, 2006 (71 FR 
77690). As stated in the parallel proposal, we will not institute a 
second comment period on this action.

    Dated: March 22, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES


Sec.  80.70  [Amended].

0
Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 80.70 which was published in the 
Federal Register on December 27, 2006 (71 FR 77615) is withdrawn as of 
March 29, 2007.

[FR Doc. E7-5808 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P