alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 COMMUNITY HOUSING RESOURCES, INC., 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. No. 34,993 4 ROBERT BOUGHTON and 5 LOUIS HILLE, 6 Defendants-Appellants. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Alan M. Malott, District Judge 9 Community Housing Resources, Inc. 10 Christopher Ocksrider 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellee 13 Robert M. Boughton 14 Louis A. Hille 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 Pro Se Appellants 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 KENNEDY, Judge. 192 {1} Appellants Robert Boughton and Louis Hille (Defendants) appeal in a self1 represented capacity from the district court’ s dismissal of their on-record appeal. Our 2 notice proposed to dismiss because Defendant s failed to file the requisite notice of 3 appeal in the district court’s clerk’s office. See generally Govich v. North Am. Sys., 4 Inc. , 1991-NMSC-061, ¶ 12, 112 N.M. 226, 814 P.2d 94 (explaining that the time and 5 place of filing for the notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to appellate 6 jurisdiction). Defendants did not file a timely memorandum in opposition, and this 7 Court denied their request to file an untimely memorandum in opposition. 8 Accordingly, for the reasons detailed in our notice, we dismiss. 9
{2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

_______________________________ 11 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 12 WE CONCUR: 13

___________________________________ 14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 15

___________________________________ 16 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 17
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1999 10-K REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           13410
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  2600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      65810
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           51149
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             50476
<LOANS>                                         436129
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (3269)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  595126
<DEPOSITS>                                      461115
<SHORT-TERM>                                     41999
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2639
<LONG-TERM>                                      50488
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2427
<OTHER-SE>                                       36458
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  595126
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  33259
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 6984
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   574
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 40817
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               16204
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               20693
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            20124
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     1509
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  31
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  15321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6943
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4701
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.96
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.71
<LOANS-NON>                                       2759
<LOANS-PAST>                                       161
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   2300
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3815
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     2299
<RECOVERIES>                                       244
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 3269
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              3269
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 77

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representa3 tives, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3194), making

4 appropriations for the government of the District of Co5 lumbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part

6 against revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending

7 September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, shall make

8 the following correction:

9 At the appropriate place in the bill insert the fol10 lowing:

11 COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION

12 PRODUCER-OWNED MARKETING ASSOCIATIONS

13 FORGIVENESS

14 SECTION. 1. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall

15 reduce the amount of any principal due on a loan made

16 to a marketing association incorporated in the State of

17 North Carolina for the 1999 crop of an agricultural com18 modity by at least 75 percent if the marketing association

19 suffered losses of the agricultural commodity in a county
2

SCON 77 ES

1 with respect to which—(1) a natural disaster was declared

2 by the Secretary for losses due to Hurricane Dennis,

3 Floyd, or Irene; or (2) a major disaster or emergency was

4 declared by the President for losses due to Hurricane Den5 nis, Floyd, or Irene under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster

6 Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et

7 seq.)

8 (b) If the Secretary assigns a grade quality for the

9 1999 crop of an agricultural commodity marketed by an

10 association described in this section that is below the base

11 quality of the agricultural commodity, the Secretary shall

12 compensate the association for losses incurred by the asso13 ciation as a result of the reduction in grade quality.

14 (c) Up to $81,000,000 of the resources of the Com15 modity Credit Corporation shall be used for the cost of

16 this section: Provided, That the entire amount necessary

17 to carry out this section shall be available only to the ex18 tent that an official budget request for the entire amount,

19 that includes designation of the entire amount of the re20 quest as an emergency requirement as defined in the Bal21 anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,

22 as amended, is transmitted by the President to the Con23 gress: Provided further, That the entire amount is des24 ignated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
3

SCON 77 ES

1 pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) and section 252(e) of

2 such Act.

3 SEC. 2. In administering $50,000,000 in emergency

4 supplemental funding for the Emergency Conservation

5 Program, the Secretary shall give priority to the repair

6 of structures essential to the operation of the farm.

Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 77

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Making technical corrections to the enrollment of

H.R. 3194.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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 of Franklin Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Gordon E. Inman, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company do hereby certify, 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
our 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.

By:      /s/ Gordon E. Inman
         -----------------------------------------------
         Gordon E. Inman
         Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
         March 31, 2003
June 11,2012 

The Honorable Ray L. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

' .. ) 

-.-·· 

We are very pleased to write in support of the application submitted by the Burlington 

International Airport for funding through the Department ofTransportation's Small Community 

Air Service Development Grant program (CFDA Number 20.930). 

As Vermont's primary commercial airport, Burlington Intemational plays a vital role in 

supporting Vermont's economy. Not only does it provide critical passenger and freight services 

for Vermont businesses, but it is also often one of the first places visited when tourists arrive in 

Vermont. However, like many small airports, Burlington Intemational experienced a significant 

decline in passenger enplanements over the past few years. One of the primary reasons behind 

this trend is because the number of seats offered by airlines has decreased as a direct result of 

airline mergers. 

The goal of Burlington Intemational Airport's Small Community Air Service Development 

Grant application is to open one or more new routes on incumberit carriers, to provide additional 

seats for the anticipated increase in demand as the economy continues to improve, and to give 

passengers additional connection options outside ofthe nation's congested Northeast con·idor. 

Specifically, the funds would be used to assist with a comprehensive marketing plan and a 

limited-time revenue guarantee program to promote and support enhanced air service. This 

application represents a strong partnership between the City of Burlington, the local and regional 

business community, and the State of Vermont. 

We appreciate you giving this request the serious consideration it deserves. If we may be of any 

assistance or answer any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

~~ PATRICK LEAHY 

United States Senator 

510-120618-015 

BERNARD SANDERS 

United States Senator 

PETER WELCH 

Member of Congress
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00084-CV

EX PARTE YADIRA HINOJOSA

On Appeal from the

139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-0321-13-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs 

of the appeal are adjudged against appellee, Yadira Hinojosa.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 4, 2014
#### WESTEND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, et al. v. WESTEND AMUSEMENT CORPORATION, et al.

No. 87-C-1463.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Westend Amusement Corp.; Abel, Glenn; Urrate, Jimmy; Boutall, Richard J.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 86-CA-0604, 86-CA-0605; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “M”, Nos. 282-746, 293-828.

Denied. The result is correct.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44548

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STEVEN KAY WHITE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 323

Filed: January 17, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance with intent 

to deliver and being a persistent violator, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Steven Kay White was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance with the 

intent to deliver, I.C. § 37-2732(a), and being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. The district 

court sentenced White to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of 

three years. White appeals.1

 

1 White was also found guilty and sentenced for three additional charges. However, he 

does not challenge those judgments of conviction and sentences on appeal. 
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, White’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### Glenn T. LOGAN Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF LAFAYETTE Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-592.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 19, 1989.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1989.

Logan & Sallinger, Barry J. Sallinger, Wm. E. Logan, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellant.

*1046Voorhis *&*Labbe, Michael D. Heber, H.D. Melton, III, Lafayette, for defendant-appellee.

Before GUIDRY, LABORDE and KING, JJ.

KING, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in *LeBlanc v. The City of Lafayette,*543 So.2d 1040 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All costs are assessed to plaintiff-appellant.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 
 **Certification
        by the Chief Financial Officer**
 **of**
 **Boardwalk
        GP, LLC**
 **pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**
 **(as
        adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**
 
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the
        undersigned chief financial officer of Boardwalk GP, LLC hereby certifies,
        to
        such officer's knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
        period
        ended September 30, 2007, (the "Report") of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners,
        LP (the
        "Partnership") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
        of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the
        Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of operations of the Partnership.
 
 October
        30, 2007
 /*s/  Jamie
        L.
        Buskill*
 Jamie
        L.
        Buskill
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 (principal
        financial officer)
#### Arvle Edward TEAGUE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-82-696.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 5, 1984.

*561Lloyd E. Cole, Jr., Stilwell, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Spencer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Arvle Edward Teague, was convicted in Adair County District Court, Case No. CRF-80-55, of Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana and sentence was set at a fine of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) and two (2) years’ imprisonment.

On the morning of August 11,1980, Adair County Sheriff, Dan Abbott, was told by an informant that marijuana was being cultivated in Adair County. The sheriff flew over the property in a plane he obtained in Tahlequah and observed large areas of vegetation that appeared to be marijuana. Sheriff Abbott testified that he sent his undersheriff, J.W. Sidebottom, and a park ranger to the Teague property to watch the back gate to prevent anyone from leaving with the contraband, while he applied for a search warrant. Sidebottom and the ranger entered the property, which had no trespassing signs posted, and found the location of the marijuana. The undersheriff then met the sheriff in Westville and they returned to the Teague property and executed the search warrant. The sheriff arrested Arvle Teague, who admitted to sole control of the property, and then he confiscated the contraband.

As his first assignment of error the appellant argues that evidence was obtained through an illegal search and seizure and that his motion to suppress and motion for acquittal were erroneously denied. The land originally searched by the deputy was not within the protected curtilage area; rather it was a cultivated field a quarter mile away from any residence and, therefore, the “open field” doctrine applies in the instant case. This Court has held that, “Protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures is not extended to open fields, therefore no search warrant was required for the agents’ initial entry upon the land.” *Anderson v. State,*658 P.2d 501 (Okl.Cr.1983); *Luman v. State,*629 P.2d 1275 (Okl.Cr.1981). We therefore, find this assignment of error to be meritless.

The appellant also assigns as error the trial court’s refusal to grant his motion requiring the State to reveal the informant’s identity. We held in *Mills v. State,*594 P.2d 374 (Okl.Cr.1979), that the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the disclosure of the informant’s identity is relevant to a fair defense. In the instant case the informant participated in no other way than to inform the sheriff that marijuana was being cultivated on the property. The disclosure of the informant’s identity would not have aided in the establishment of the guilt or innocence of the appellant. We likewise find this assignment of error to be without merit.

*562Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

CORNISH and BRETT, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
       
<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                           2,469
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    3,062
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     7,333
<INVENTORY>                                                     17,834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               215,993
<PP&E>                                                          10,790
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  33,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 729,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          523,795
<BONDS>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                     1,348,930
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0   
<PREFERRED>                                                  2,162,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                  (3,334,936)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   729,551
<SALES>                                                         93,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                98,165
<CGS>                                                           46,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               240,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              43,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (232,001)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (232,001)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (232,001)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
#### Oneida Leblanc BARES, et al., Plaintiffs-Relators, v. The STONE OIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Respondents. Wanda Leblanc SAVOY, et al., Plaintiffs-Relators, v. The STONE OIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 86-1291.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 26, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 12, 1987.

Allen Bares, Lawrence Donohoe, of One-bane, Donohoe, Bernard, Torian, Diaz, McNamara & Abell, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.

Andrew Gates, Lafayette, for defendant-appellee-appellant.

Charles F. Bailey, Lafayette, John McCo-11am, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Stuart & Duplantis, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Roger Sellers, of Thompson and Sellers, Abbeville, Charles Wooten, Lafayette, for intervenor-appellee.

Before DOMENGEAUX, LABORDE and YELVERTON, JJ.

YELVERTON, Judge.

For the reasons stated in *Bares v. Stone Oil,*510 So.2d 102 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1987), the court will not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. The application is denied.

DENIED.
1 **ATTACHMENT 3**  **Red Line and Strike Out Version of GHG Mitigation Measures**  **TSD Excerpt**  **s** 1) Pages 3 - 6, 3 - 8, 4 - 4, 4 - 19

– Revised website address for all references to IPM modeling data to: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.html . 2) Revised language and footnote in Chapter 2 on heat rate improvement (HRI) as follows: a) Sec 2. 5 .2.2

– Deleted “ ambient air (primary air) is mixed with fuel prior to combustion and a fraction of” from “ Ambient air temperature can affect gross heat rate in three ways: (1) ambient air (primary air) is mixed with fuel prior to combustion and a fraction of energy released during combustion heats the incoming air, ...,” to read “Ambient air temperature can affect gross heat rate in three ways: (1) energy released during combustion heats the incoming air,....” Ambient air temperature can affect gross heat rate in three ways: (1) ambient air (primary air) is mixed with fuel prior to combustion and a fraction of energy released during combustion heats the incoming air , (2) in many regions of the country

temperature affects electricity demand and, as a result, some .... b) Page 2 - 57

– Corrected final footnote: “See supra 93 95 ”.