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

Docket No. 44183

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

HARLEY RAY HERNANDEZ ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 789

Filed: November 28, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr. , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twelve and on

- half year s, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one

- half years, for rape of a female under that age of sixteen and perpetra tor is eighteen years of age or older, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________
PER CURIAM Harley R. Hernandez pleaded guilty to rape of a female under the age of sixteen and perpetrator is eighteen years of age or older , Idaho Code § 18

- 1601(1) . The district court imposed a unified sentence of twelve and one

- half year s, with one and o ne

- half years

determinate

. Hernandez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court

denied. 1 Hernandez appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

1 Hernandez does not appeal from the district court’s denial of his Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion.2

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 Ida ho 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, Hernandez ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Simpson, Appellant.

Submitted April 21, 1969.

Before Bell, C.J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*440May 28, 1969:

*Marvin R. Halbert,*for appellant.

*Victor J. DiNubile, Jr.*and *James D. Crawford,*Assistant District Attorneys, *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Arlen Specter,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellant attacks the validity of his guilty plea on the ground that he had been promised a lesser sentence by his trial counsel. The statements of counsel in the record indicate the contrary. The burden of proving an illegal inducement of a guilty plea falls on appellant when the record of a colloquy clearly shows a valid plea. *Commonwealth v. Grays,*428 Pa. 109, 237 A. 2d 198 (1968). The existence of the record here makes the application of *Commonwealth v. Finney,*433 Pa. 152, 249 A. 2d 286 (1969), inappropriate.

Appellant further contends that the hearing judge erred in not calling appellant’s trial counsel to testify. Appellant, however, requested neither their testimony nor their attendance. A hearing judge is not required to call witnesses of his own initiative. Considering the state of the record and the applicable burdens, there is no error.

Order affirmed.

Mr, Justice Jones concurs in the result.
#### The People of the State of New York, *Respondent, v.*Dayton Tanner and others, *Appellants.*

Judgment and conviction reversed; new trial granted at Broome County Sessions. Opinion by Bockes, J.
(Reap. Dec. 8730)

#### Western European Import Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 903909-1/2.

(Decided January 17, 1957)

*Siegel Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, 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 respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, with respect to the following merchandise, Item No. 432/21 CM. contained in Cases No. K-45 and K-46, and Item No. 401/20 CM. contained in Case No. K-49, both of which items were appraised at $6.75 each packed, covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above, that the export value of such merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was $5.00 each net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the foreign value was lower for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Reap-praisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision 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 item No. 432/21 CM. contained in cases K-45 and K-46, and item No. 401/20 CM. contained in case K-49, both of which items were appraised at $6.75 each packed, and that such value was $5 each, net, packed.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise, it is hereby-dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, William D. Eglin, Chief Executive Officer of MD
Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of MD Technologies Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2005 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of MD Technologies Inc.



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 10, 2005 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ William D. Eglin
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  | William D. Eglin       
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



To the Board of Directors

Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology, Inc.



     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-3, as amended, and Form S-8, dated May 3, 2001 and August 20, 2001,
respectively, of Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology, Inc. (the
"Corporation") of our report dated August 8, 2001, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of the Corporation as of June 30, 2001 and 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and stockholders' equity for
the years ended June 30, 2001 and 2000, the six-month period ended June 30,
1999, and for the periods from inception (March 2, 1998) to June 30, 1998 and to
June 30, 2001, which report appears in the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of the Corporation, dated June 30, 2001. We also consent to the
reference to our firm under Item 14 in such Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ KMPG LLP

KPMG LLP


Chartered Accountants
Montreal, Canada
October 2, 2001
Exhibit 32.6

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Currency Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Currency Series.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                         
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Currency Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                           
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                            
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Currency Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: May 14, 2008
#### H. C. Mather, R. S. Mather and J. R. Mather, individually and as a copartnership under the name of Mather Brothers; Mather-Barnes Company, a corporation; J. Brooks Monroe, individually and doing business as J. Brooks Monroe Operating Company, v. Florida National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation under the Federal Bank Laws, and Grace M. Cushing, as Executors of the Estate of Worthen A. Gove, deceased, and Florida National Bank of Jacksonville, as Trustee of the Estate of Worthen A. Gove, deceased.

182 So. 301.

Opinion Filed June 18, 1938.

*Erskine W. Landis,*and *Hull, Landis & Whitehair,*for Appellants ;

*M. G. Rome,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made by defendants, appellants here, for a better bill of particulars, and an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the bill of complaint which had been filed by the appellees. After due hearing and consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the bill was not without equity and that the order of the court below, denying said motion to dismiss should be allowed to stand. Nor was there any re*892versible error committed in denying the motion for bill of particulars.

As the Court cannot foresee what questions may be presented for decision by further pleadings and proof in this cause in the court -below, the Court deems it unnecessary at this time to discuss and rule upon the questions which have been so ably presented and argued, both orally and by briefs, by counsel for the respective parties, some of which questions may be materially changed or entirely eliminated when the answer is filed and the evidence is taken.

Taking all of the allegations of the amended’bill, which are well presented, as being true, which must be done on motion to dismiss, the bill is not without equity, and the court below should not be reversed for so holding.

The orders appealed from must therefore be and the same hereby are accordingly affirmed.

Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  annual  report of Pacific  Fuel Cell  Corp.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2005 (the "Report"),  I,
the  undersigned,  in the capacity  and on the date  indicated  below,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C./  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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.



Dated:  April 7, 2005                           s/Ken Inouye
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Ken Inouye, Secretary/Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7475

ALLEN WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JASON WEBBER; RL TURNER; TIM RILEY; ANN HALLMAN; MARY 

COLEMAN; DENNIS PATTERSON; CHRISTINE THOMPSON; GARY LANE; 

MAJOR PARRISH; MRS MIDDLEBROOKS; DEBRA MANESS; MARY MCCABE; 

LT BATES; MRS WHITNER; JERRY ALEXANDER; PRINCIPAL MORROW; 

MICHAEL FOWLER; P CRIDER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(1:11-cv-02199-TLW)

Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, 

MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, 

South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Allen Wright appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. Wright has 

also filed a motion for appointment of counsel and injunctive 

relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny Wright’s motion and affirm the 

district court’s judgment. Wright v. Webber, No. 1:11-cv-02199-

TLW (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2012). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Harry Solodow (Radio Picture Frame Co.) et al. *v.*United States

No. 7482.

Entry No. 719863, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, August 29, 1941, etc.

Certified September 19, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 17, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 18, 1947)

*Eugene R. Pichrell*for the plaintiffs.

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

Kincbeloe, 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.)

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 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.
#### UNITED STATES, Petitioner v FRANK DOUGLAS ADAMS, Sergeant, U. S. Army, Respondent

19 USCMA 262, 41 CMR 262

Miscellaneous Docket No. 69-74

February 27, 1970

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger, Captain Benjamin G. Porter,*and *Captain Edward W. Hieronymus*were on the pleadings for Petitioner.

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Norman L. Blumenfeld,*and *Captain Monte Engler*were on the pleadings for Respondent.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Judge:

This Court, on November 21, 1969 (United States v Adams, 19 USCMA 75, 41 CMR 75), reversed the respondent’s conviction for unlawfully transferring marihuana to another in violation of section 4742, Title 26, United States Code. The record of trial was returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for resubmission to the Court of Military Review for a rehearing or reassessment of the sentence on the basis of the finding of guilty of the remaining specification.

The Government now petitions this Court for reconsideration of that action, contending that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Minor v United States, 396 US 87, 24 L Ed 2d 283, 90 S Ct — (1969), is controlling. We agree. Accordingly, the petition for reconsideration is granted, and the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judge FeRGüson concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

I would adhere to the earlier dismissal of the specification for the reasons set out in my opinion on that occasion. United States v Adams, 19 USCMA 75, 41 CMR 75 (1969).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CYNTHIA O’CONNER,

1

Petitioner BelowAppellant,

v.

DARRYL J. ROBINSON,

Respondent BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 42, 2015

§

§

§ Court Below—Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ File No. CN09-04138

§ Petition Nos. 14-29245 and

§ and 14-28432

§

Submitted: August 28, 2015

 Decided: October 27, 2015

Amended: October 29, 2015

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 27th day of October 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s 

opening brief2and the record below, we find it evident that the judgment of 

the Family Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons 

assigned in the Family Court’s well-reasoned decision dated January 13, 

2015 affirming the Commissioner’s denial of the appellant’s petition for a 

protection from abuse (“PFA”) order and grant of the appellee’s PFA 

petition.

 

1

The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 

7(d).

2

The appellee did not file an answering brief.
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Family Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5283]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Art Advisory Panel--Notice of Availability of Report of 2006 
Closed Meetings

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. I section 10(d), of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, and 5 U.S.C. 552b, the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, a report summarizing the closed meeting activities of the 
Art Advisory Panel during 2006 has been prepared. A copy of this report 
has been filed with the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for 
Management.

DATES: Effective Date: This notice is effective March 23, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The report is available for public inspection and requests 
for copies should be addressed to: Internal Revenue Service, Freedom of 
Information Reading Room, Room 1621, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20224, telephone number (202) 622-5164 (not a toll free 
number). The report is also available at http://www.irs.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Carolan, AP:ART, Internal 
Revenue Service/Appeals, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 
telephone (202) 435-5609 (not a toll free telephone number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has 
determined that this document is not a major rule as defined in 
Executive Order 12291 and that a regulatory impact analysis therefore, 
is not required. Neither does this document constitute a rule subject 
to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).

Mark W. Everson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[FR Doc. E7-5283 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 53639.

protests 127108-K, etc. (New York).

#### Simon Import Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### In the Matter of Antonio C. Martinez, Appellant, v Estela Garcia, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 126]

—In a proceeding, *inter alia,*for the partition of real property, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated November 5, 1993, which, *inter alia,*declared that both parties owned 50% of the property, and that if either party paid more than one half of the mortgage, upon resale, that party would receive from the other party the amount in excess thereof.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The record supports the court’s finding that the respondent, who had a limited knowledge of English and of finance, had a confidential relationship with her son, the petitioner. In light of this relationship, it was the petitioner’s burden to disprove the respondent’s testimony that she paid the petitioner $500 per month towards expenses of the house *(see, Matter of Gordon v Bialystoker Ctr. & Bikur Cholim,*45 NY2d 692). We find that the petitioner failed to satisfy this burden. Accordingly, the court’s determination shall not be disturbed.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 CenterPoint Energy
Transition Bond Company, LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Marc Kilbride, Vice President and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer), 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, 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.

    /s/ Marc Kilbride
----------------------------------
Marc Kilbride
Vice President and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
March 31, 2005