alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Public Warehousing Company K.S.C. ) ) Under Contract Nos. SP0300-03-D-3061 ) SPM300-05-D-3119 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 56022

Michael R. Chamess, Esq. Adrianne L. Goins, Esq. Bryan T. Bunting, Esq.

Vinson & Elkins LLP Washington, DC Daniel K. Poling, Esq.

DLA ChiefTrial Attorney Keith J. Feigenbaum, Esq.

Trial Attorney DLATroop Support Philadelphia, PA ORDER OF DISMISSAL Pursuant to the unopposed motion ofappellant Public Warehousing Company K.S.C. dated 8 June 2017, this appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 13 June 2017
JAMES R. SWEET Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 56022, Appeal ofPublic Warehousing Company K.S.C., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
#### Ruth P. Dimmick, Appellant, *v.*Elizabeth M. Cooley, *Appellants.*Jonah D. Decker (formerly plaintiffs attorney), *Respondent.*

— So much of the order appealed from as directs a reference reversed and the remainder of the order affirmed, without costs to either party. Opinion by Bareer, J.
No. 53610.

protest 88716-K (San Francisco).

#### Ti Hang Lung & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the hearing it was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the Sum Yung involved in *Wing Duck Co.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 133, C. D. 446). In accordance with this agreement plaintiff’s claim that the merchandise is not subject to an internal revenue tax was sustained.
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2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 462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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Code § 18-1508A. The district court imposed a unified fifteenyear 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.

Therefore, Riggs’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### Jane E. Spendlove, *Appellant, v.*Alexander L. Chero and another, *as Executors, etc.,*Respondents.

Order appealed from affirmed ; costs of this appeal to abide the final direction in the proceedings as to costs.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOT A

202 4 ND 59

Jaime Urrabazo, Petitioner and Appellant

v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20230317

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Reid A

. Brady , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam

. Kiara C. Kraus

- Parr, Grand Forks, ND , for petitioner and appellant.

Derek K. Steiner, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, ND , for respondent and appellee.1 Urrabazo v. State No. 20230317

Per Curi a m. [¶1] Jaime Urrabazo appeals from a district court order denying his application for postconviction relief. Urrabazo argues counsel was ineffective and in turn , his plea was not voluntary or intelligently made because counsel failed to explain the offense he was pleading guilty to could be used to enhance future criminal penalties. Following a hearin g, the court found that Urrabazo failed to establish his attorne y’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and, in addition, he did n ot show the results of the case would have been different absent the alleged error. We conclude the court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. We affirm under N.D.R.A pp.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
|   | (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/ Tracey L. Stockwell            |   |
|   |   | Name: Tracey L. Stockwell          |   |
|   |   | Title: Principal Financial Officer |   |
|   |   |                               |   |
---

Exhibit 23.1

RSM Richter Chamberland S.E.N.C.R.L.Comptables agréésChartered Accountants2, Place Alexis NihonMontréal, (Québec) H3Z 3C2Téléphone / Telephone : (514) 934-3400Télécopieur / Facsimile : (514) 934-3408www.rsmrch.com


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S 8 of IntelGenx Technologies Corp. of our report
dated March 28, 2011 relating to our audits of the financial statements of
IntelGenx Technologies Corp. as of and for the years ended December 31, 2010 and
2009 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of IntelGenx Technologies
Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2010.

RSM Richter Chamberland LLP (Signed)

Chartered Accountants

Montreal, Canada
March 28, 2011

---
```

[107th Congress Public Law 367]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ367.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 3033]]

Public Law 107-367
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To reauthorize the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project. <<NOTE: Dec. 
                       19, 2002 -  [H.R. 4638]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MNI WICONI RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, SOUTH DAKOTA.

    Section 10(a) of the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-
516; 102 Stat. 2571), as amended by section 813 of the Mni Wiconi Act 
Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-434; 108 Stat. 4545), is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(based on October 
        1, 1992, price levels) and $58,800,000 (based on October 1, 
        1997, price levels)'' after ``$263,241,000'';
            (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``2003'' and 
        inserting ``2008''; and
            (3) in the last sentence, by inserting ``(with respect to 
        the $263,241,000), and October 1, 1997 (with respect to the 
        $58,800,000)'' after ``1992''.

    Approved December 19, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4638 (S. 1999):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-633 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 107-268 accompanying S. 1999 (Comm. on Energy and 
Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            Sept. 24, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 19, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

______________________________________________________________________________ MIRIAM PENADO , o n behalf of Herself and A. A.H., born 2018 , and A.M.H., born 2020,

Petit io ner and Appellant, v. DANIEL HUNTER,

Respondent and Appellee. Cause No. DA - 23 - 0692 **ORDER**
Upon considerat io n of Appellant’s motion for extensio n and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Appellant shall have unt il June 10, 2024, to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s reply brief. No f urther extensio ns will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 30 2024

05/30/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0692
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, John A. Scarlett, M.D., certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tercica, Inc.



Date: August 4, 2005



By:

/s/ John A. Scarlett, M.D.John A. Scarlett, M.D.Chief Executive Officer




This certification accompanies
the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tercica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Robert P. Crowe, *Individually, etc., Respondent, v.*Frederick O. Lewin, *Executor, etc., Appellant.*

— J udgment, affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Macomber, J.
Exhibit 23.2   INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMS CONSENT  The Board of Directors Ableauctions.com, Inc.   We consent to the use in the Registration Statement of Ableauctions.com, Inc. on Form S-8 and Form S-3 of our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 26, 2007 on the consolidated balance sheet of Ableauctions.com, Inc. as of December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statement of operations, comprehensive income, cash flows, and stockholders equity for the year then ended.   /s/ TELFORD SADOVNICK, P.L.L.C. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS  Bellingham, Washington  March 27, 2008
(Reap. Dec. 8881)

Entry No. J-658.

#### Jno. G. McGiffin *v.*United States

(Decided June 25, 1957)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*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 HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attornev General for the United States, subject *551to the approval of the Court, in the matter of the above entitled reappraisement, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise covered thereby there was no foreign, export or United States value,

> That cost of production is the proper basis of appraisement and that the invoice unit value plus packing represented said cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f) Tariff Act of 1930.

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

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) 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 invoice unit value, plus packing.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 10181)

#### Gitkin Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 808508-1/2; 808816.

(Decided February 27, 1962)

*Barnes, Richardson £ Oalbum*for the plaintiff.

*William R. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeals for reappraisement upon stipulation reading as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise and the issues involved in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Gitkin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 2. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, 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 incidental to placing the merchandise *573in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised values, less the amounts indicated on the entry papers as having been added back on entry to make market value; and that at the said time of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers for home consumption in the country of exportation.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as it existed prior to the effective date of the amendment thereof by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise involved and that such values were the appraised values, less the amounts indicated on the entry papers as having been added back on . entry to make market value.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0931

SAT Date: 10/22/2013

Print Date: 5/5/2014

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: IRR-S,E

MUTA

ONCO

DEVEL

LIVER

KIDNEY

SENS-S,L

AQUATOX -A,C

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0931

FATE: 

Solid with MP = 57 C (E)

log Kow = 3.44 (E) 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 3
S = 39.4 mg/L at 25 C (E)

VP = 1.0E-3 torr at 25 C (E)

BP = 300 C (E)

H = 1.73E-6 (E)

log Koc = 2.70 (E)

log Fish BCF = 1.94 (E)

log Fish BAF = 1.41 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk

Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate

Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 500 hrs

Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 230 da

Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 2.9 hr via OH radical

Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 160 hr via ozone

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil through the skin for the neat material, 

moderate through the skin for the material in solution, and moderate through the lung and GI 

tract, based on physical/chemical properties. Expect Michael addition to the acrylate. There are 

concerns for skin and eye irritation, developmental, liver, and kidney toxicities, respiratory and 

dermal sensitization, mutagenicity, and oncogenicity from the acrylate.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.3

daphnid 48-h LC50 1.7

green algal 96-h EC50 0.30

fish _ chronic value 0.002

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.068

algal _ chronic 

value

0.11

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for acrylates; SAR chemical class 

= acrylate; MW 220; solid with mp unknown (P); log Kow = 3.44 (EPI); S = 40 mg/L at 20 C 

(P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured 

concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 3
Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1

SARs acrylates

SAR Class acrylate

Ecotox Category Acrylates/Methacrylates

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: J. Kwiat

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14785-14786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5770]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2698]


Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Authorization for Continued 
Project Operation

March 23, 2007.
    On July 25, 2000, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, licensee for the East 
Fork Hydroelectric Project, filed an application for a new or 
subsequent license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the 
Commission's regulations thereunder. The West Fork Project is located 
on the Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina.
    The license for Project No. 2698 was issued for a period ending 
January 31, 2006. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), 
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue 
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the 
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is 
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior 
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based 
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), 
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project 
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may 
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license 
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee 
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent 
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to 
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a 
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2698 is issued to 
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., for a period effective February 1, 2006 
through January 31, 2007, or until the issuance of a new license for 
the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. 
If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place 
on or before January 31, 2007, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 
18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is 
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the

[[Page 14786]]

Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., is authorized to 
continue operation of the East Fork Project until such time as the 
Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5770 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### ANNA G. ZANCA, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

See same case below: 73 *N. J. Super.*23.

*Messrs. Major & Major*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Hubert J. Franklin*and *Messrs. Ryan, Saros, Davis & Gonant*for the respondents.

June 11, 1962.
Exhibit 31 (d)**CERTIFICATION**I, Craig D. Abolt, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Finance Co., Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:August 15, 2005       By: /s/ Craig D. Abolt       Craig D. Abolt  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer