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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36724

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MISTY M. CANADA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 496

Filed: June 4, 2010

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Bradley S. Ford, District Judge. 

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, 

affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Misty M. Canada was convicted of felony driving under the influence of alcohol, Idaho 

Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005. The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence with three 

years determinate to run concurrently with a previously imposed sentence. Canada filed an 

Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Canada appeals from the denial 

of her Rule 35 motion.

A Rule 35 motion is a request for leniency which is addressed to the sound discretion of 

the sentencing court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State v. 

Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion, 

the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information 
2

subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 

201, 159 P.3d 838 (2007). Our focus on review is upon the nature of the offense and the 

character of the offender. State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 772, 653 P.2d 1183, 1184 (Ct. App. 

1982). Where a sentence is not illegal, the appellant must show that it is unreasonably harsh in 

light of the primary objective of protecting society and the related goals of deterrence, 

rehabilitation and retribution. State v. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 145, 814 P.2d 401, 405 

(1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992); 

State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). 

Having reviewed the record, including the new information submitted with Canada’s 

Rule 35 motion, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the motion. 

Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Canada’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 27, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-11036 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN SCHMIDT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CR-40-1-A

- - - - - - - - - - Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John Schmidt appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for one count of tax evasion. Schmidt argues that the district court abused its discretion in 1) denying his motion to continue his sentencing hearing, 2) denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and 3) departing upward at sentencing. Specifically, Schmidt argues that the denial of his motion toNo. 02-11036 -2- continue deprived him of the opportunity to earn a reduced sentence based on his assistance in a West Virginia healthcare fraud case. Schmidt further contends that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted based on, among other things, his alleged innocence of the insurance fraud allegations contained in Schmidt’s Presentence Report. Schmidt extends the same innocence argument as a basis for disputing the district court’s upward departure. In addition, Schmidt challenges the quality and quantity of the Government’s fraud evidence and contends that the insurance fraud conduct was accounted for in the sentencing guidelines calculations for the offense of conviction. Schmidt further challenges certain enhancements included in the district court’s upward departure calculations. We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to any of Schmidt’s assignments of error.
See United States v. Peden , 891 F.2d 514, 519 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Grant , 117 F.3d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1997); United
States v. Carr , 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Ashburn , 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Millsaps , 157 F.3d 989, 997 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
#### Jimmy James BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2181.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

March 28, 1969.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; B. L. David, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
,l(EPJKABHA ABIAI(IHHA 

CJlY)KEA YKPAIHH 

():(EMKABIACJIY)KEA YKPAIHH) 

YKpatHa, 01135, M. KHiB, np. TlepeMom, 14 

Ten:+38(044) 461-54-0 I 

<t>rucc:+ 38(044) 486-92-92 

Be6: www.avia.gov.ua 

E-mail: vdz@avia.gov.ua 

l. 16 - ... p-1 5"1; b 

. ~ 2. 'Lo-13 

Mr. Paul L.Gretch 

Director 

Office of International Aviation 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington DC 20591 

Dear Mr. Gretch, 

STATE AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION 

OF UKRAINE 

14. Peremogy ave., 01135. Kyiv. Ukraine 

Tel.: -r38(044) 461-54-01 

Fax: +38(044) 486-92-92 

Web: W\V\V.avia.gov.ua 

E-mail: vdz® avia.gov.ua 

The State Aviation Administration of Ukraine presents its compliments to you and 

taking into account the U.S. Department of Transportation's rule requiring a 

statement of reciprocity every six months with respect to charter applications filed by 

Ukrainian airlines to the U.S. Depattment of Transportation would like to confirm 

that it will accord the same privileges to U.S. airlines to operate cargo charter fljghts 

with Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Freedom to the extent that the U.S. Department of 

Transportation grants reciprocal privileges to Ukrainian airlines according to the 

submjtted applications. 

Yours sincerely, 

Oleksandr Grechko 

Senior Deputy Chairman 

005950
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# TIME AND DATE:

Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 10:30 a.m. ET.

# PLACE:

Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20237.

      ( print page 44565)    

# STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent agenda consisting of the minutes of its June 6, 2018 meeting and a resolution honoring the 55th anniversary of Voice of America's English to Africa Service. The Board will receive a report from the Chief Executive Officer and Director of BBG.

                        This meeting will be available for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public website at                         *www.bbg.gov.*                         Information regarding this meeting, including any updates or adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the agency's public website.                    

                        The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address listed above as seating capacity permits. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting in person must register at                         *https://bbgboardmeetingsept2018.eventbrite.com*                         by 12:00 p.m. (ET) on September 4. For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at (202) 203-4400 or by email at                         *pubaff@bbg.gov.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

Oanh Tran,

Managing Director.

[FR Doc. 2018-19085 Filed 8-29-18; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
Exhibit 31

Certification of the Trustees Vice President Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 7241)

I, Michael J. Ulrich, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I, for which The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., acts as Trustee;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) or for causing such controls and procedures to be established and maintained, for the registrant and I have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors:

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves any persons who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.

In giving the foregoing certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5, I have relied to the extent I
consider reasonable on information provided to me by SandRidge Energy, Inc.



/s/ Michael J. UlrichMichael J. Ulrich Vice
President The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.


Date: May 20, 2011
1

Filed 10/9/15 In re C.B. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re C.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A144296

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. Nos. J1201410, J1300822)

Mother, S.L., appeals from orders terminating her parental rights with respect to 

two children on the sole ground that the Contra Costa County Children and Family 

Services Bureau (Bureau) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian 

Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

5.481.) 

By letter brief received by this court on August 7, 2015, the Bureau conceded that 

notice should have been sent to the appropriate tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

after obtaining information from the parents and relatives. The Bureau proposed entry of 

a conditional reversal of the order terminating parental rights and a limited remand for 

compliance with the ICWA, after which the Bureau would file all the relevant documents 

for the trial court’s review and redetermination of proper notice; if no tribe claims the 
2

children are Indian children, the judgment terminating parental rights would be 

reinstated. 

We provided appellant with the opportunity to respond to the Bureau’s proposed 

conditional reversal. On August 26, 2015, we were advised by appellant that no response 

to the Bureau’s proposed conditional reversal was forthcoming. 

We will therefore reverse the orders terminating parental rights and remand the 

matter for compliance with the ICWA as proposed by the Bureau.

DISPOSITION

The orders terminating parental rights of mother S.L. are reversed and remanded 

for compliance with the ICWA. If no tribe claims the children are Indian children, the 

orders terminating parental rights will be reinstated.

NEEDHAM, J.

We concur.

JONES, P.J.

BRUINIERS, J.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Finance and Accounting Service Providing payment services for the U.S. Department of Defense

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Military Member		 
-  Retired Military & Annuitant		 
-  Civilian Employee		 
-  Contractor & Vendor		 

Homedebtandclaimsoutofservicedebtinformation

## Do you need a prior year tax statement?

Please click to select an option:

Request a prior year tax statement

For all other questions, click here.

 

Back to Main Page

### Stay Connected

Department of Defense     Department of Veterans Affairs     Military Employment Verification     Warrior Care Website     Defense Contract Mgmt Agency  DoD Forms     Department of State     Civilian Personnel Mgmt Service     DTS Travel Center     System for Award Mgmt (SAM)    Congressional/LegislationPersonnel Force Innovation     Freedom of Information Act     DFAS Hotline   Contact Us     Accessibility / Section 508    EEO / No Fear Act  

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### In the Matter of Lucille Montgomery, Appellant, v Cesar Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated June 20, 1988, which, after a fair hearing, affirmed a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services authorizing the recovery of all but $4,094.18 from the petitioner’s initial award of Supplemental Security Income, the petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), entered July *67115, 1989, as dismissed her first, second, fourth and fifth claims, and remitted the matter to the State Commissioner for further proceedings.

Ordered that on the court’s own motion, the petitioner’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, the application is referred to Justice Brown, and leave to appeal is granted by Justice Brown (CPLR 5701 [b] [1]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements *(see, Matter of Long v Perales,*172 AD2d 667 [decided herewith]).

We note that the petitioner herein did, in fact, execute a document authorizing the local agency to retain any Supplemental Security Income benefits to which she might be entitled within 180 days of applying for those benefits *(see,*18 NYCRR former 370.7 [a] [4]), although that authorization was executed before the application was filed. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
### NU MBE R 13- 08- 0067 0-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ AU T OM OT IV E C ON SU LT IN G SE RVI C ES , I N C ., Ap pe l l an t, v . GUE RRA & MOOR E, LT D., L LP, C AR LO S L. G U ER RA, A N D J. M IC H AE L M OO R E, Ap pe l l ee s.

____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On A ppea l from the C ounty C our t at L aw N o. 6 of H i da l go C ou nty , T ex as .

____ ______ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ch ief Ju stice Va lde z an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Vela

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t per

fected an appeal from a jud g ment ent ered by the Co unty

C our t atLaw No. 6 of H ida lg o Cou nty , Tex as, i n c ause number C L- 08- 1868- F. The pa rt ies hav e fil ed an a greed , joint m otion for dispositio n pu rsuan t to settle me nt. T he p arties request th at th is Court dism iss the ap pea l.2

The Co urt, hav ing cons ide re d the document s on file and the p arti es’ ag re ed, j oin t moti on for dis posi ti on pursuantto settl ement, is of t he opi nio n that the mot ion sh oul d be g ra nted. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1( a)
. The par ti es’ moti on to di smi ss i s g ra nted, and the app eal is hereb y

DISMISSED. In a ccorda nce wi th th e agreem entof the pa rties, costs are tax ed ag ain st the p arty

i ncur ri ng sa me. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( d)
. Hav ing di smi ss ed th e appeal at the part ies ’ re q uest , no moti on for rehear ing w il l be entertai ned, and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.
PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 26t h day

of Ma rc h, 20 09.
S. 540 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To temporarily extend the public debt limit, 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 ‘‘Temporary Debt Limit Extension 

Act’’. 

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States 

Code, shall not apply for the period beginning on the date of 

the enactment of this Act and ending on March 15, 2015. 

(b) SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO OBLIGATIONS ISSUED DURING

EXTENSION PERIOD.—Effective March 16, 2015, the limitation in 

effect under section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall 

be increased to the extent that— 

(1) the face amount of obligations issued under chapter 

31 of such title and the face amount of obligations whose 

principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States 

Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury) outstanding on March 16, 2015, exceeds 

(2) the face amount of such obligations outstanding on 

the date of the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 3. RESTORING CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY OVER THE 

NATIONAL DEBT. 

(a) EXTENSION LIMITED TO NECESSARY OBLIGATIONS.—An 

obligation shall not be taken into account under section 2(b)(1) 

unless the issuance of such obligation was necessary to fund a 

commitment incurred pursuant to law by the Federal Government 

that required payment before March 16, 2015. 

(b) PROHIBITION ON CREATION OF CASH RESERVE DURING

EXTENSION PERIOD.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall not issue 

obligations during the period specified in section 2(a) for the purpose 
S. 540—2 

of increasing the cash balance above normal operating balances 

in anticipation of the expiration of such period. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EX-10.30



 IMAX CORPORATION 

EXHIBIT 10.30 

Andrew Cripps Renewal – Term Sheet 

January 23, 2014 
 Term:
Indefinite - Full time/Permanent
 Base salary: £500,000 - eligible for annual review as part of regular company cycle starting Q1 2015.

Bonus target: 70%. Bonus is discretionary, based 50% on company performance and 50% on personal performance 

LTIP: 
 Q1 2014: $65,000 worth of RSUs
(20/25/25/30 4 year vest) 
 Q1 2015: $75,000 worth of RSUs (20/25/25/30 4 year vest) 

Effective Q1 2016 will participate as a “regular” employee in the standard LTIP grant process. 

Benefits: We will continue to pay for health benefits, life insurance and pension. If Andrew reaches a pension cap we will contribute the same amount
as we currently are to his pension to a Life Insurance product or something else instead.
 Car allowance: No change to current £850 per
month + expenses 
 Termination/Severance: In the case of termination without cause, we will provide Andrew with working notice or pay in lieu
of notice equal to six months +1 month of base salary and benefits for every full year of service from the effective date of the new agreement to a max of 12 months in total. 

Resignation: Andrew will be required to provide us with 6 months’ notice of resignation 

Non-compete / confidentiality / non-solicit: We will get as much protection for IMAX as possible under UK law