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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 41860 & 41941

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TYLER JAMES LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 735

Filed: September 23, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey, District Judge. 

Judgments of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three years, and concurrent unified sentence of seven 

years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for two counts of 

burglary, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In Docket No. 41860, Tyler James Lewis pled guilty to one count of burglary. I.C. 

§§ 18-1401, 18-1403. The district court sentenced Lewis to a unified term of six years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of three years. In Docket No. 41941, Lewis pled guilty to one 

count of burglary. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The 

district court sentenced Lewis to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of three years, to run concurrent with his other burglary sentence. Lewis filed 

I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of his sentences, which the district court denied. Lewis 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, Lewis’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 3990 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 225

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection of

Connectors 5.0 $ 425.00 $ 

### 0 $ 425.00 

### 7 $ 2,975.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products i n compliance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 2,975



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 

### 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
Exhibit 31.2
 Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Principal Financial Officer.
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Beach First National Bancshares, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ Gary S. AustinGary S. Austin, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Facility or Case name and number:

I have read and understand the above statement. I have been given an opportunity tomake

any changes or corrections to it that I desire. I believe this statement is true and accurate tothe best ofmy knowedge. V

Name:

(Please print name)

Witnessed by:

(Please print name)

Signature: Signature of witness:

Date signed:

Address:

Witness’ Tit]e:

Date Simied:

Phone number: (hnme’l

Phone Number of witness:

nf
Page

of________
PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Facility Name Dates Photos Taken By;

or Case: Photos

Taken: V

Film V

Date By

Developed Dropped Off: V whom:

At: Date By

V Picked Up: whom:

NOTE: Use one Photograph Log for each roll of film used.

Date Frame Brief Description Of Photograph Notes

Number V

V
Date Frame Brief Description Of Photograph Notes

Number
Exhibit 13



Certification



OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 20-F of Océ N.V. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), R.L. van Iperen, as Chairman of the Board of Executive Directors of the Company, and
J van den Belt, as Chief Financial Officer and member of the Board of Executive Officers of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 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 the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 26, 2004



/s/ R.L. van IperenName: R.L. van IperenTitle: Chairman of the Boardof Executive Directors(Principal Executive Officer)




/s/ J. van den BeltName: J. van den BeltTitle: Chief Financial Officer and memberof the Board of Executive Directors(Principal Financial Officer)




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Richard Lee FERGUSON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54014.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 30, 1973.

In re: Richard Lee Ferguson applying for remedial writ and writ of habeas corpus.

Granted. Evidentiary hearing ordered on effective counsel question, relating to applicant’s appellate rights.
Table 11.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit, for the United States and Regions:
                  Fourth Quarter 2001 and 2000

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                                   Fourth quarter 2001


                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      8.9       7.1       8.0      11.3       7.5
      For rent...........................      2.7       1.8       2.8       3.4       2.4
      For sale only......................      1.1       0.7       1.1       1.4       1.0
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.6       0.7       0.7       0.5       0.6
      Held off market....................      4.5       3.9       3.5       6.1       3.4
        For occasional use...............      1.6       1.0       0.6       2.3       1.7
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.9       1.1       0.8       1.0       0.6
        For other reasons................      2.1       1.8       2.0       2.8       1.2

    Seasonal vacant......................      2.8       3.6       2.9       2.6       2.3

    Occupied.............................     88.3      89.2      89.1      86.1      90.2




                                                   Fourth quarter 2000

Type of housing unit
                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      8.5       7.0       7.0      11.1       6.9
      For rent...........................      2.5       1.8       2.4       3.2       2.0
      For sale only......................      1.0       0.7       0.8       1.3       0.8
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.6       0.5       0.6       0.7       0.6
      Held off market....................      4.4       3.9       3.2       5.9       3.5
        For occasional use...............      1.5       1.2       0.6       2.1       1.5
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.8       1.0       0.6       1.1       0.6
        For other reasons................      2.1       1.8       2.0       2.7       1.4

    Seasonal vacant......................      2.9       3.6       2.6       2.9       2.5

    Occupied.............................     88.6      89.4      90.4      86.0      90.6
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4378

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JAMIE GIST, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:04-cr-00840-HMH) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 5, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. Carlyle Steele, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jamie Gist pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine and more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000); operating a stash house, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), (a)(2) (West Supp. 2006); and possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Gist to 151 months of imprisonment, the bottom of the properly calculated advisory sentencing guidelines range. Gist’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal but challenging the adequacy of the plea colloquy. Gist was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. Counsel questions whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, in accepting Gist’s guilty plea. Because Gist did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez , 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and find no error in the district court’s acceptance of Gist’s guilty plea.- 3 - In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Gist’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,180,145
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              174,497,231
<ALLOWANCES>                              (34,626,726)
<INVENTORY>                                 13,045,319
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,095,969
<PP&E>                                      13,602,689
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,861,124)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             185,979,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      150,883,969
<BONDS>                                      9,140,132
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           14,696
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,444
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,419,637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               185,979,425
<SALES>                                     43,789,552
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            53,162,618
<CGS>                                       26,188,340
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,386,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,766,642
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            10,592,204
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,198,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,232,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                   829,284
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,402,774
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,402,774
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Jan 11 2011

 Exemption No. 5549J

 Regulatory 

Docket No. FAA-2000-8434

Mr. Paul W. Railsback

Air Transport Association

1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Suite 110

Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Railsback:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend 

Exemption No. 5549, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision 

and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 25, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Air Transport Association (ATA) for an 

extension of Exemption No. 5549, as amended. That exemption from § 121.652(a) 

and (c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows a new pilot 

in command (PIC) of any ATA member airline, and of any similarly situated part 

121 certificate holder, who is subject to higher landing weather 

minimum requirements to operate to the normal, lower Category I and Category 

II minimums under the conditions stipulated.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions 

and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for 

granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of 

the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of 

the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this 

petition would be detrimental to the affected airlines.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption 

No. 5549, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in 

the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 

and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 5549, as amended, 

to January 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 5549, as amended, remain the 

same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 5549.

Sincerely,

Lower Minimum

https://webopss.faa.gov/Designator/Exemption/Exemption.aspx?ExemptionId=46003 (1 of 2) [7/27/2012 8:39:14 AM]
Lower Minimum

/s/

Raymond Towles

Acting Director, Flight Standards

 Service

AFS-11-033-E

https://webopss.faa.gov/Designator/Exemption/Exemption.aspx?ExemptionId=46003 (2 of 2) [7/27/2012 8:39:14 AM]
#### Ambrose Winfred HAYWOOD v. EASTERN ASSOCIATED TERMINALS COMPANY and the Continental Insurance Companies.

No. 5593.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

April 3, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1973.

Writ Refused June 28, 1973.

*329Orlando G. Bendana, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Robert E. Peyton, Christovich & Kear-ney, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and SCHOTT, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Defendants, an employer and its insurer, appeal from an award of workmen’s compensation benefits for total and permanent disability (subject to credit for benefits paid).

Defendants argue that, since plaintiff laborer’s job duties were only light labor, he is not totally and permanently disabled because he is in fact able to return to light labor.

Plaintiff’s disability is described as a loss of function of both legs, estimated at from 5% to 20%, due to second- and third-degree burns over 20% to 35% of his whole body, with resulting immobility especially from skin grafts, perhaps worsened by a pre-existent but not disabling arthritis. The medical testimony is fairly unanimous that plaintiff could do some kind of light labor, perhaps most of his prior duties, but he could not perform heavy labor nor tasks requiring climbing or much agility on his legs.

In our judgment, the test is whether his “injury has substantially decreased his ability to compete with ablebodied workers in the flexible general labor market”, Ball v. American Marine Corp., 245 La. 515,159 So.2d 138 (1963).

While defendant employer had reduced plaintiff’s work burden from heavier to lighter labor because of his age (64 years) prior to this accident, there is testimony that defendant itself would not reemploy plaintiff in his. present condition. Defendant thus proves plaintiff’s competitive disadvantage and supports his entitlement under *Ball, supra,*

We recognize that the period of 500 weeks of compensation may be longer than the work-life expectancy of a 64-year-old. On the other hand, it is shorter than that of a 30-year-old. The statute may provide too much for a man disabled on the eve of his retirement, and too little for a man disabled while quite young. We view this as a legislative problem. We could not reduce the award to the older man, just as we could not increase the award to the younger man.

The judgment is affirmed.
No. 11049.

#### The Lima Electric Railway & Light Co., *v.*McComb, Admr.

Decided October 12, 1909.

Error, to Circuit Court of Allen county.

*Messrs. Cable & Parmenter*and *Mr. W. B. Richie,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Ridenour & Half-*
      *491
      *hill,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Spear and Price, JJ., concur.
S1()-1()()3()3-()2 I



# FORT SMIT H REGIONA L AIRPOR T 670 0 McKenno n Blvd. , Suit e 20 0 • For t Smith , A R 7290 3 479.452.700 0 x5 0 • 479.452.700 8 fa x www.fortsmltlialrportco m Februar y 23,201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon dH . LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Docke t DOT-OST-2010-003 4 Dea r Mr . Secretary : Than k yo u fo r th e opportunit

y t o expres s our

suppor t fo r th e applicatio n for

antitrus t immunit y an d propose djoin t

busines s agreemen t

filedb y American Airline s an dJapan Airlines . Th e propose dallianc e between thes e tw o airline s i s vita l for th e oneworl dallianc e t o compete effectivel y wit h th e Sta r an d SkyTea malliances . Thi s increase dallianc e competitio n wil l i n turn enhanc e th e benefit s o f th e Dq)artment* s Ope n Skie s polic y - first b y solidifyin g U.S . - Japa n Ope n Skies , the n b y servin g a s a foundatio n fo

r fUrthe r liberalizatio n acros s Asia . Afte r athoroug h review , w e encourag e th e Department o f Transportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t woul denabl e thes e oneworl dallianc e airline s t o wor k closel y togethe r

t o delive r highl y cott^etitiv e ai r transportatio n services . Approval for AA/JA L allianc e wil l hav e apositiv e impac t o n ai r trave l b y offering customer s mor e service , schedulin g an dpricin g option s an dwil l hel p t o ensur e that customer s continu e t o benefit

fromth e competitio n afforde db y thre e competitiv e ai r alliances . W e urg e you t o quickl y approv e thi s application . Sincerely .

For t Smit h Airpor t Commissio n 670 0 McKenno n Blvd. , Suit e 20 0 For t Smith , A R7290 3 Admin@fortsmithairport.co m