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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41855

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER JOHN NAGY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 862

Filed: December 15, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three years, for aggravated assault and concurrent 

unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five 

years, for aggravated battery, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Christopher John Nagy pled guilty to aggravated assault, I.C. §§ 18-901 and 18-905, and 

aggravated battery, I.C. §§ 18-903 and 18-907. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional 

charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Nagy to a unified term of five years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of three years, for aggravated assault and a concurrent unified 

term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for aggravated 

battery. Nagy filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Nagy appeals.
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 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, Nagy’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
GRIFFIN & SERRANO, P .A. 

Coral Gables Office 

(305) 777-0247 

Via FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 

600 Independence Avenue SW 

Attorneys At Law 

Blackstone Building, Sixth Floor 

707 Southeast 3'' Avenue 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 

Tel: (954) 462-4002 

Fax: (954) 462-4009 

jserrano@griffinserrano.com 

September 4, 2014 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: FAA v. Miami Tech 

FAA File No: 2010S0190295 

Our File No.: 54-004 

Dear Hearing Docket Clerk, 

RECEIVED 

SEP - 5 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Plantation Key Office 

(305) 852-5500 

Miami Tech Aircraft Maintenance, Inc. by and through its undersigned counsel, and 

pursuant to 14 C.P.R. 13.16(g)(2)(ii) hereby requests as hearing for the matter subject of FAA 

File No: 2010S0190295. Please note that the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty was 

received on September 3, 2014 and this request is being made this 41

h day of September, 2014. 

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. 

JRS/agp 

Cc: 

Via US Post- J!.eturn Receipt 

Mr. William P. Vines, Esq. 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

PO BOX20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

W arme_s.J:-Regafd 

// 

'--------~""---

JU
### ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY EVALUATION

Regulatory Evaluation Form , Revision 2
. 5 Page 1 of 1 1/15/10 

### AD Title: SP3075EN
- E_Thielert_TAE_125_Clutch_EASA
- 201 1
- 01 52
- E Docket No. FAA
- Directorate Identifier:
- AD **Costs:** Costs per **Product** (e.g., engine, propeller) Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) W ork
h ours Labor cost ( @ $8 5 /hour) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U
. S
. Fleet Replace 16.0 $ 1,360.00 $1,796 $ 3,156.00 10 4 $ 328,224 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0



### Total Cost s of compliance for U
. S
. fleet: $ 328,224



### Costs covered u

nder warranty **Special considerations for Econom**  **ic Analysis :**  Work hours per engine estimated by ECO. Parts cost from Thielert illustrated parts catalog, pro
- rated from standard replacement interval. 

### Executive Order 1286 **6:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES explain below NO **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES explain below NO **Regu latory Flexibility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES explain below NO **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alask a. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES explain below NO 

### Explanation: Not significant per Airw or thiness Directives Manual, FAA
- IR
- M
- 8040.1B , paragraph 2. b.
#### Lucy Percy MADDOX v. Elena PERCY.

No. 61254.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

In re: Mrs. Lucy Percy Maddox applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of West Feliciana. 351 So.2d 1249.

Denied.
#### Margarita A. TEY, Appellant, v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-1084.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 4, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06368**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 06368\06368_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06368\06368_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 06368\06368_Followup Questions1.xls Technical Review Correspondence x 06368\06368_Followup Response1.xls Technical Review Correspondence

06368\06368_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 06368\06368_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 06368\06368_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 06368\06368_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 06368\06368_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 06368\06368_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 06368\06368_telecon1.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 06368\06368_telecon2.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 06368\06368_telecon3.pdf Technical Review Correspondence

06368\Certification Statement Plant ID 06368.pdf Plant certification statement x 06368\Supporting Documentation\06368_Greene County Water Balance - WB1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06368\Supporting Documentation\06368_ICR-Plant-GreeneCo - Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 06368\Supporting Documentation\06368_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000315256
<NAME>PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                1,609,032
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 28,884
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                     461,370
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   523,147
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,622,433
<COMMON>                                         1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  424,654
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                        319,938
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             745,667
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       25,000
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       516,485
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                   25,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                624,477
<LEASES-CURRENT>                           101,676
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             585,202
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>            2,622,433
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                1,160,572
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                        40,724
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 999,157
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>               1,035,967
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                    124,605
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           6,793
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>             127,484
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    43,275
<NET-INCOME>                                84,209
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  6,625
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>               77,584
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                   42,728
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                     199,119
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00


</TABLE>
Exhibit  11 - Computation of Earnings Per Common Share

                              CONGOLEUM CORPORATION
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                  (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

                                                Years Ended December 31,
                                          --------------------------------------
Basic Earnings Per Common Share:             1997         1996         1995
--------------------------------             ----         ----         ----

Net income per common and common
   equivalent share                          $6,741     $12,097      $ 9,435
                                            =======     =======      =======

Weighted average common shares
outstanding                                   9,837       9,997       10,000

Net income per common share                 $  0.69     $  1.21      $  0.94
                                            =======     =======      =======

Diluted Earnings Per Common Share:

Net income per common and common
   equivalent share                          $6,741     $12,097      $ 9,435
                                            =======     =======      =======

Weighted average common shares
outstanding                                   9,837       9,997       10,000

Effect of assumed exercise of dilutive
   stock options(1)                               2          10           22
                                            -------     -------      -------

Weighted average common and
   common equivalent shares                   9,839      10,007       10,022

Net income per common and common
   equivalent share                         $  0.69     $  1.21      $  0.94
                                            =======     =======      =======

(1) Computed based on the Treasury Stock method.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


                       UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC.

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                             (Shares in Thousands)
                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Six Months
                                                                    Ended June 30,
                                                               -----------------------
                                                                  1996         1997
                                                               ----------   ----------
<S>                                                            <C>          <C>       
Average number of shares outstanding .......................      248,928      250,128
                                                       
Average shares issuable on exercise of stock           
     options less shares repurchasable from proceeds .......          922          876
                                                               ----------   ----------
Total average number of common and common              
     equivalent shares .....................................      249,850      251,004
                                                               ==========   ==========
                                                       
Net income (millions) ......................................   $    129.6   $    191.6
                                                               ==========   ==========
                                                       
Earnings per share .........................................   $     0.52   $     0.76
                                                               ==========   ==========
</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134074 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134074 

 COA: 272500 

Oakland CC: 2002-182823-FC 

DWAYNE SCOTT BERRY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0917 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
# uop
The State of New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services 

Michael P Nolin 

Cornrnissioner 

September 15, 2004 

I Hereby Certify: 

That, in accordance with the provisions of NH RSA 541-A:11 and section 110(a) of the 

Clean Air Act, as amended, public notice was given specifying that a public hearing was to be 

held on September 15, 2004 at 11 :00 a.m. in Room 114 of the offices of the NH Department of 

Environmental Services, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH. The notice was published at least 30 

days prior to the date of such hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The notice stated 

that copies of documentation regarding revisions to the State Implementation Plan, specifically 

the proposed readoption with amendment of Env-A 2700 of the NH Code of Administrative 

Rules, could be examined at the offices of the Department's Air Resources Division. 

That the public hearing was held on September 15, 2004 at 11 :00 a.m. in Room 114 of 

the offices of the NH Department of Environmental Services, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH, in 

accordance with the public notice . 

That a complete record of the public hearing held on September 15, 2004 is available on 

tape at the offices of the NH Department of Environmental Services, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, 

NH. 

That the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

Craig A. 

Stationary Source Management Bureau 

Air Resources Division 

P.O. Box 95, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095 

Telephone: (603) 271-1370 " Fax: (603) 271-1381 " TDD Access : Relay NH 1-800-735-2964 

DES Web site : www.des .nh.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1614 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1614

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require Certificates of Citizenship and other Federal documents to 
reflect name and date of birth determinations made by a State court and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Accuracy for Adoptees Act''.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF STATE COURT DETERMINATIONS OF NAME AND BIRTH 
              DATE.

    Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) A Certificate of Citizenship or other Federal document issued 
or requested to be amended under this section shall reflect the child's 
name and date of birth as indicated on a State court order, birth 
certificate, certificate of foreign birth, certificate of birth abroad, 
or similar State vital records document issued by the child's State of 
residence in the United States after the child has been adopted or 
readopted in that State.''.

            Passed the Senate December 20 (legislative day, December 
      19), 2013.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1614

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To require Certificates of Citizenship and other Federal documents to 
reflect name and date of birth determinations made by a State court and 
                          for other purposes.
```
#### Alexander THORPE v. STATE.

No. 36508.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 199 So.2d 161.
As a product improvement onnew engines, the straight exhaust manifold tubes P/N 77023 will be replaced with P/N LW-15850 andP/N 77022 will be replaced by P/N LW-15849. The new tubes have a 3 bend which will aid in the alignment of the exhaust manifold tubes with the transition assembly. See figure 1. Exhaust systems in the fieldwill accept the new 3 bend tubes. The procedure for the installation of the tubes is as follows: 1. Remove Marman clamps fromexhaust tubes on both sides of the transition assembly. Remove rear four exhaust tubes. 2. Assemble new exhaust tubes P/N's LW15849 and LW-15850 as indicated in figure 1. If the replacement of an exhaustmanifold component reguires the removal ofagasket,a new gasket should beused at re-assembly.

77023 LW-15850 

# Lycoming 

# SERVICE INSTRUCTION 652OliverStreet Williamsport,PA 17701 U.S.A. 717/323-6181

DATE: October 5, 1979 Service Instruction No. 1391 Engineering Aspects are FAA (DER)Approved SUBJECT: MODELS AFFECTED:

TIME OFCOMPLIANCE: ExhaustManifold Tube Alignment TIO-540-A, -F, -J and -R models with serialnumbers up to and including L-6073-61A. LTIO-540-F, -J and -R models with serial numbers up to including L-1570-68A. During engine overhaul or at owner's discretion. 3. In adjusting exhaust manifold tubes, the new tube can be rotated toeffect thebest possible alignment. See figure 2. In some cases, it may be beneficial to loosen exhaust manifold nuts one turn to facilitate alignment. After alignment has been achieved re-torque evenly beginning with no. 1 and no. 2cylinders working back to the transition assembly. Tighten each attaching part equally and uniformly until a torque of 204 inchpounds has been applied.

NOTE Two typesof coupling latch nutsmay be foundon 2.00 inch v-band couplings. A split type lock nut, asdescribed with a specified torque of 85 inch pounds; or a drilled hex nut secured with safety wire, having a torquevalue of 75 inchpounds.

-77022

LW-158497 77022 /

T10-540-J-R TIO-540-A,-F
Figure 1. Exaggerated View Comparing New and Old Tubes

Page 1of 2PARTS DATA: PART NO. LW-15849 LW-15849 LW-15850 78083 LW-15619 Service Instruction No. 1391

Figure 2.View ShowingAlignment ofModified Tube With Transition Assembly

DESCRIPTION PIPE, Exhaust

- left intermediate PIPE, Exhaust

- right intermediate PIPE, Exhaust

- right intermediate GASKET, V-band coupling

- 2.00OD tube GASKET, Exhaust flange TIO-540 A,F,J,R J,R A,F A,F,J,R A,F,J,R QTY. REQD. 1 1 1 2 12

Page 2of 2
Exhibit 23.1 - Consent of Independent Auditors


We  consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual
Report  (Form 10-K) of Congoleum Corporation of  our  report
dated  February 21, 1997, included in the 1996 Annual Report
to Shareholders of Congoleum Corporation.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule  of
Congoleum Corporation for the year ended December  31,  1996
listed  in  Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility
of  the  Company's  management.  Our  responsibility  is  to
express an opinion based on our audit.  In our opinion,  the
financial   statement  schedule  referred  to  above,   when
considered  in  relation to the basic  financial  statements
taken as  a whole, presents fairly in all material  respects
the information set forth therein.

We  also  consent to the incorporation by reference  in  the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-97220) pertaining to
the  Congoleum Corporation 1995 Stock Option  Plan  of  this
report  on  the financial statement schedule and our  report
dated   February  21,  1997,  with  respect  to   the   1996
financial statements of Congoleum  Corporation  incorporated 
by reference in the Annual Report  (Form  10-K) for the year 
ended December 31, 1996.


/S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
---------------------
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 14, 1997
#### John A. BRAXTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-156.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 23, 1972.

John A. Braxton, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme *232Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.