alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alan STEIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. A-2386.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

July 29, 1988.

*133William Bixby, Valdez, for appellant. Robert D. Bacon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Grace Berg Schaible, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Alan Stein was convicted of unlawfully fishing in closed waters in violation of 5 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 33.-310(c)(5). The case was prosecuted on a strict liability theory as a violation pursuant to *Beran v. State,*705 P.2d 1280 (Alaska App.1985). A fine of $1,000 was imposed and paid. Two years later, Stein moved, apparently in reliance on Alaska Criminal Rule 35(a), to correct his sentence and reduce the fine to $300. He relied on *Constantine v. State,*739 P.2d 188 (Alaska App.1987), in which we held as a matter of statutory construction that the legislature had limited fines for strict liability violations of fishing regulations to $300. The trial court denied relief and Stein appeals.

On appeal, the state concedes that *Constantine*must be applied retroactively since it, in effect, determines the jurisdiction of the court to assess fines for strict liability violations in excess of $300. *See Farleigh v. Anchorage,*728 P.2d 637, 640-41 (Alaska 1986) (discussing circumstances under which decisions must be applied retroactively). The state argues, however, that Stein was obligated to raise the issue on appeal and by failing to do so, forfeited his right to bring this action. The state relies on Criminal Rule 35.1(b) and *Marrone v. State,*653 P.2d 672 (Alaska App.1982).

Having thoroughly reviewed the authorities, we are satisfied that the state has misperceived the basis for Stein’s claim for relief. Stein’s sentence was illegal. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose it. Stein’s argument should be construed as relying on Criminal Rule 35(a), which provides for a motion to correct an illegal sentence. As one authority points out: “A sentence can be attacked as illegal under Rule 35(a) regardless of whether the point could have been raised on an earlier direct appeal.” 3 C. Wright, *Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal*2nd § 584 at 395 (1982).

A motion to correct an illegal sentence must be distinguished from an application for post-conviction relief. *See id.*§ 583 at 391-393. We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in not correcting Stein’s sentence.

The judgment of the district court is REVERSED.1

1

. The parties have not briefed the question whether Stein is entitled to any remedy beyond correction of the judgment against him. We express no opinion as to whether the district court has jurisdiction to grant restitution because the parties have not briefed the issue.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 23886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09440]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to 
Biosortia Pharmaceuticals of Dublin, Ohio, an exclusive license to U.S. 
Patent No. 7,943,142, ``EUGLENOID DERIVED ALKALOID'', issued on May 17, 
2011.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in 
this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license this invention as Biosortia Pharmaceuticals of 
Dublin, Ohio has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a 
license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and 
will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 
404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 
thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the 
Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument 
which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent 
with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Robert Griesbach,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-09440 Filed 4-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRENDA J. LITTLE, an attorney on

leave,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

 Defendant,

 And

WASHINGTON STATE BAR

ASSOCIATION, a state agency; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-35297

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01387-JLR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 16, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

FILED

APR 23 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-35297

Brenda J. Little, an attorney on leave, appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state

law claims in connection with proceedings to determine the status of her

membership in the Washington State Bar Association. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072

(9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Dominguez v. Miller (In

re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a)). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Little’s action because the First

Amended Complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring pleading to contain “a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d

1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (to be entitled to presumption of truth, a complaint’s

allegations may not simply recite elements of cause of action but must contain

sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and enable an effective

defense; factual allegations taken as true must plausibly suggest “entitlement to

relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the

expense of discovery and continued litigation”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
3 12-35297

1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 “is a basis for dismissal independent of Rule

12(b)(6)”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Defendant Washington State Bar Association’s opposed motion to strike

portions of Little’s reply brief is denied.

Defendant Muscatel’s motion to strike Little’s reply brief is denied. 

Little’s request for sanctions, raised in her reply brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
1 In The


### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________
N O

. 09

- 20

- 00066

- CR

__________________ BEYONKA LIMBRICK , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 411th District Court San Jacinto County, Texas Trial Cause No. 9,585

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, a ppellant Beyonka Limbrick pleaded
guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, a state jail
felony. The trial court found Limbrick guilty and assessed punishment at two years
in state jail, then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Limbrick on community

s upervision for five years, and assessed a $500 fine. S ubsequently, the State filed a

motion to revo ke Limbrick’s community supervision. Limbrick pleaded “not true”
to the alleged violations of the terms of the commun ity supervision order. After2 conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Limbrick violated the

terms of her community super vision, revoked Limbrick’s community su pervision,

and imposed a sentence of ten months of confinement.
Limbrick’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s profession al
evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Ande rs v.
California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State
, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978). On May 15, 2020 , we granted an extension of time for Limbrick to file a pro

se brief. We received no response from Limbrick. We have reviewed the appellate
record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an

appeal. There fore , we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re

brief the ap peal. C f. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991 )

.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice

Submitted on October 1, 2020 Opinion Delivered November 4, 2020 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton , JJ.

1 Limbrick may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

Order 

July 22, 2011 

142177 & (15) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142177 

 COA: 299228 

Berrien CC: 2009-015594-FH 

DAVID IVAN FREEZE, II, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of April 28, 2011, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the October 14, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question 

presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

YOUNG, C.J. (concurring). 

 

Even assuming, without deciding, that an attorney renders ineffective assistance of 

counsel where he fails to advise his client that the client will be required to register under 

the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) if he pleads guilty, see People v Fonville, ___ 

Mich App ___ (No. 294554, issued January 25, 2011), defendant in this case cannot 

demonstrate prejudice necessary to accord relief. See Strickland v Washington, 466 US 

668 (1984); People v Carbin, 463 Mich 590 (2001). As the Berrein Circuit Court 

determined at a hearing conducted pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973), 

even though defense counsel advised defendant that counsel was unaware whether 

defendant would have to register as a sex offender if he pleaded guilty to two counts of 

possessing child sexually abusive material and one count of using a computer to commit 

the crime, defendant nevertheless pleaded guilty with the actual knowledge that he might 

have to register as a sex offender. Because, by his own admission, defendant agreed to 

plead guilty with the knowledge that SORA registration might be required, he cannot 

demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been 

different even if counsel had informed him of the mandatory SORA registration 

requirements.
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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 22, 2011 

y0719 

 

2

MARKMAN and MARY BETH KELLY, JJ., join the statement of YOUNG, C.J. 

MARILYN KELLY, J., would remand this case to the trial court for reconsideration 

in light of People v Fonville, ___ Mich App ___ (2011) (Docket No. 294554, decided 

January 25, 2011). 

ZAHRA, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 158 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 158

To authorize the production of records by the Permanent Subcommittee on 
 Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
                                Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2013

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize the production of records by the Permanent Subcommittee on 
 Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
                                Affairs.

Whereas, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on 
        Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs conducted a review of the 
        expenditures of U.S. funds related to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan;
Whereas, the Subcommittee has received a request from a federal agency for 
        access to records of the Subcommittee's review;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take 
        such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, acting jointly, are authorized to 
provide to law enforcement officials, regulatory agencies, and other 
entities or individuals duly authorized by federal, state, or foreign 
governments, records of the Subcommittee's review of the expenditures 
of U.S. funds related to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

** PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES‐OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

I, Mark Gatto, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President, in connection with the Quarterly Reportof CĪON Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Quarterly Report”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     The QuarterlyReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.     Theinformation contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:August 10, 2016

 

|   |                                                                                                      |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Mark Gatto

Mark  Gatto  Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President

*(Principal Executive Officer)* |
|   | CĪON  Investment Corporation                                                                         |

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, W. Anthony Vernon, Chief Executive Officer of Kraft Foods
Group, Inc. (Kraft), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that Krafts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2012, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in Krafts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects Krafts
financial condition and results of operations.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/  W. Anthony Vernon 
|W. Anthony Vernon      
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 9, 2012       

I, Timothy R. McLevish, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Kraft Foods Group, Inc. (Kraft),
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that Krafts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in Krafts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects Krafts financial condition and results
of operations.



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/  Timothy R. McLevish    
|Timothy R. McLevish         
|Executive Vice President and
|Chief Financial Officer     
|November 9, 2012            

A signed original of these written statements required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and will be retained by Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.65 MB)

Tags:Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Defense Logistics Agency, Awards, Rim of the Pacific exercise, Subsistence, Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Pacific, Food Inspection, RIMPACT

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### In the Matter of Adella Butts, Petitioner, against Joseph D. McGoldrick, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

March 15, 1955.

*Alexander E. Harris*for petitioner.

*Walter S. Fried*and *Hortense W. Gabel*for respondent.

Lewis W. Olliefe, J.

This is a proceeding to review a • determination of respondent which denied an order of decontrol.

Petitioner applied for decontrol of the basement portion of the subject premises on the ground that she had created an additional housing unit therein. Section 11 of the State Bent and Eviction Begulations provides for the issuance óf such *1005an order where there has been a structural change in a residential unit or units involving substantial alterations or remodeling and such change has resulted in additional housing accommodations consisting of self-contained family units.

It appears from the record that in the year 1929 the Department of Housing and Buildings classified the basement apartment as being located in a converted dwelling for legal use by one family and it was so occupied in April, 1953. Subsequently the said department placed a violation on the basement and petitioner spent a considerable sum in removing the violation. Petitioner installed a water closet, wash basin, bathroom and sink and did some excavation work. However, such work did not create any *additional*housing unit and the application for decontrol was denied by the Local Bent Administrator, and that determination affirmed by the State Bent Administrator and the protest of petitioner denied, upon the ground that the premises had been occupied previously to the alterations and that no additional housing accommodations had been created.

The landlord may file an application to increase the maximum rent for this apartment to reflect the increased rental value resulting from the alterations made.

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the determination of the Bent Administrator, which is neither arbitrary, capricious nor contrary to law.

The petition is dismissed.