alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45038

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

THOR FITZGERALD WARE, JR. ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 425

Filed: April 18, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Madison County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller , District Judge.

Order granting Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds

, 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 Thor Fitzgerald Ware, Jr. pled guilty to rape , Idaho Code § 18

- 6101(2) . The district court imposed a unified sentence of twelve ye ars, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, and retained jurisdiction

. After the rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Ware
filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court

grante d, reducing Ware’s sentence to ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two

and one

- half years. Ware appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion in declining to further reduce his sentence.2 Initially, we note that a lower court’s decision to grant or deny a Rule 35 motion will not

be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Villarreal , 126 Idaho 277, 281, 882 P.2d 444, 448 (Ct. App. 1994). Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See State v. Hernandez

, 121 Idaho 114, 822 P.2d 1011 (Ct. App. 19 91); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (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). Since the district court

later modif ied Ware’s sentence, pursuant to his Rule 35 motion, we will only review Ware’s

modified sentence for an abuse of discretion. See State v. McGonigal , 122 Idaho 939, 940

- 41,
842 P.2d 275, 276

- 77 (1992). Ware has the burden of showing a clear abuse of dis cretion on the part of the district court in failing to further reduce the sentence on his Rule 35 motion. See State v. Cotton , 100
Idaho 573, 577, 602 P.2d 71, 75 (1979). Ware has failed to show such an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the order of th e district court granting Ware’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 170 (Thursday, October 30, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
(Committees not listed did not meet)
ECONOMIC STIMULUS
Joint Economic Committee: Committee concluded a hearing to examine 
faltering economic growth and the need for economic stimulus, after 
receiving testimony from J. Steven Landefeld, Director, Bureau of 
Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce; Nouriel Roubini, New York 
University Stern School of Business, New York, New York; Simon Johnson, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; Richard K. Vedder, 
American Enterprise Institute, Athens, Ohio; and Vincent DeMarco, 
Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative, Donald C. Fry, Greater Baltimore 
Committee, and Joseph Haskins, Jr., Harbor Bank of Maryland, all of 
Baltimore, Maryland.
```
<PAGE>




                                                                   Exhibit 10.10

                                 Amendment No. 2
                                       to
                              Employment Agreement


         This Amendment No. 2 dated as of November 18, 1999 to the Employment
Agreement dated as of February 5, 1997, as amended to date (as so amended, the
"Employment Agreement") between Aeroflex Incorporated, a Delaware corporation,
with its principal office located at 35 South Service Road, Plainview, NY 11803
(together with its successors and assigns permitted under this Agreement, the
"Company"), and Carl Caruso, who resides at 5 Flamingo Drive, Smithtown, NY
11787 (the "Employee").

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into the Employment
Agreement, the terms of which were amended on November 17, 1998, and now desire
to further modify certain of the terms and provisions thereof;

         NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:

         1.       The Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

                  (a) Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby
                  amended and restated as follows:

                  "(a) Effective September 4, 1999, the Employee shall receive
                  from the Company an initial annual Base Salary, payable in
                  accordance with the regular payroll practices of the Company,
                  of $200,000. During the Term of Employment, the Compensation
                  Committee shall review the Base Salary no less often than
                  annually for increase as of each July 1 beginning with July 1,
                  1997; provided, however, that increases shall not be less than
                  the increases in the Consumer Price Index for the New York and
                  Northeastern New Jersey Region, as published by the United
                  States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics using
                  June 1996 as the basedate, determined and payable as provided
                  in Section 3(b) below."

2. All capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined herein, are used
herein as defined in the Employment Agreement. Except as expressly provided
herein, all terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.

              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands
as of the date first above written.

                                       AEROFLEX INCORPORATED

                                       By: /s/ Charles Badlato
                                          --------------------------------------
                                             Name:  Charles Badlato
                                             Title: Treasurer


                                            /s/ Carl Caruso
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                                Carl Caruso
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 754

To designate the Federal building located at 310 New Bern Avenue in

Raleigh, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Terry Sanford Federal Building’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 25, 1999

Mr. EDWARDS (for himself and Mr. HELMS) introduced the following bill;

which was read the first time

APRIL 12, 1999

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

APRIL 15, 1999

Referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 310 New Bern

Avenue in Raleigh, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Terry Sanford Federal Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Terry Sanford Com5 memoration Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress makes the following findings:
2

S 754 RTS

1 (1) Terry Sanford served the State of North

2 Carolina and the Nation with enthusiasm, bravery,

3 and distinction in many important ways, including—

4 (A) as a paratrooper in World War II;

5 (B) as an agent with the Federal Bureau

6 of Investigation;

7 (C) as a North Carolina State senator;

8 (D) as Governor of North Carolina;

9 (E) as a professor of public policy at Duke

10 University;

11 (F) as President of Duke University;

12 (G) as a United States Senator from

13 North Carolina;

14 (H) as a patron of the arts; and

15 (I) as a loving and committed husband and

16 father.

17 (2) Terry Sanford fought tirelessly and self18 lessly throughout his life to improve the lives of his

19 fellow citizens through public education; racial heal20 ing, economic development; eradication of poverty,

21 and promotion of the arts.

22 (3) Terry Sanford exemplified the best qualities

23 mankind has to offer.

24 (4) Terry Sanford lived an exemplary life and

25 is owed a debt of gratitude for his untiring service
3

S 754 RTS

1 to the State of North Carolina and his fellow Ameri2 cans.

3 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 310 New Bern Ave5 nue in Raleigh, North Carolina, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Terry Sanford Federal Building’’.

7 SEC. 4. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

10 building referred to in section 3 shall be deemed to be

11 a reference of the ‘‘Terry Sanford Federal Building’’.

Æ
**Exhibit 23(a)**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-00395, File No. 333-86056 and File No. 333-119926) and Forms S-8 (File No. 33-27869, File No. 33-46641, File No. 33-48504, File No. 33-48505, FileNo. 333-26111, File No. 333-45107 and File No. 333-84170) of Energen Corporation of our report dated March 15, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Birmingham, Alabama 

March 15, 2006
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 19, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      HONORING DR. PETER G. MEHAS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. JIM COSTA

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 19, 2008

  Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise today along with Congressman 
Radanovich to congratulate Dr. Peter Mehas upon his induction into the 
Fresno Athletic Hall of Fame. Dr. Mehas was honored at the 50th 
anniversary enshrinement dinner of the Fresno Athletic Hall of Fame on 
Thursday, November 6, 2008.
  Peter Mehas' love of sports was nurtured during his childhood, as he 
shagged baseballs as a bat boy for the Fresno Cardinals at Euless Park. 
Although he never considered himself a great athlete, Dr. Mehas was an 
All-American center/linebacker at Fresno City College, and a member of 
the 1961 California State University, Fresno Mercy Bowl team. After 
graduating from California State University, Fresno, Dr. Mehas coached 
the football, soccer and tennis teams at Roosevelt High School. His 
tennis teams won five straight North Yosemite League titles.
  After receiving his masters degree, and coaching football at 
University of California, Los Angeles, Dr. Mehas returned to Fresno 
where he taught and coached future Fresno Hall of Famers Charle Young 
and Charles Anthony, both football players at Edison High School. Dr. 
Mehas moved into administration for Clovis Unified School District, and 
assisted in the development of many programs and facilities; including 
Clovis High School's Lamonica Stadium and the Clovis West High School 
Olympic Swim Complex. He earned his doctorate in Education from the 
University of Southern California in 1979.
  Dr. Mehas has served as the Fresno Athletic Hall of Fame president 
for 15 years. At the time of his induction, his professional and civic 
career is a notable example of applying the lessons learned in 
athletics to other endeavors. Under his leadership, the Hall of Fame 
expanded on its mission of honoring the Valley's greatest sports heroes 
and inspiring youngsters to follow in their footsteps. He also has been 
instrumental in expanding athletic opportunities for women.
  Politics came next as Dr. Mehas served as Governor George 
Deukmejian's secretary of education and a trustee for the State Board 
of Education and California's Community Colleges. In 1990, he was 
elected to the first of four terms as the Fresno County superintendent 
of schools. In 2007, he was appointed to the California State 
University board of trustees.
  Madam Speaker, we rise today to commend and congratulate Dr. Peter 
Mehas upon his achievements and induction into the Fresno Athletic Hall 
of Fame. I invite my colleagues to join me in wishing Dr. Mehas 
congratulations on his many accomplishments.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 165 (Tuesday, October 14, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
(Committees not listed did not meet.)
FINANCIAL DERIVATIVES
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: Committee concluded 
a hearing to examine the role of financial derivatives in the current 
financial crisis, after receiving testimony from Ananda Radhakrishnan, 
Director, Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission; Eric R. Dinallo, New York State Insurance 
Department, Richard R. Lindsey, Callcott Group, LLC, on behalf of the 
International Association of Financial Engineers, and Robert G. Pickel, 
International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc., all of New York, 
New York; William K. Black, University of Missouri--Kansas City; 
Terrence A. Duffy, CME Group, Chicago, Illinois; and Johnathan Short, 
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (ICE), Atlanta, Georgia.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1781

ELISE GUY TCHUENKAM KOM,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-220-860)

Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 25, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,

Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney

General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, John J.

Powers, III, Steven J. Mintz, Office of Immigration Litigation,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Elise Guy Tchuenkam Kom, a native and citizen of

Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the

immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (CAT). 

We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so

compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325

n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,

483-84 (1992)). We have reviewed the administrative record, the

immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order and find

substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Kom failed to

establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future

persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8

C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on

the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); Elias-Zacarias, 502

U.S. at 483 (same). 

Next, we uphold the Board’s denial of Kom’s application

for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of

removal is “more stringent than that for asylum eligibility.”

Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for

withholding must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution.
- 3 -

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As Kom failed to

establish refugee status, he cannot satisfy the higher standard

necessary for withholding.

Furthermore, we conclude substantial evidence supports

the determination that Kom did not establish it was more likely

than not that he would be tortured if removed to Cameroon, see 8

C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004), and thus, that Kom’s petition for

protection under the CAT was properly denied.

Accordingly, we deny Kom’s petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
##### 



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 Abrams Industries, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended April 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan R. Abrams, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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.

|                    |  |                                                         
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: July 25, 2003 |  | /s/ Alan R. AbramsAlan R. Abrams
Chief Executive Officer
#### Charles F. Palen et al., Plaintiffs, v Ford Motor Company et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Dutchess County,

January 21, 1988

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Steven M. Melley*for plaintiffs. *Schrade & Van Ryn*for defendants.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Ralph A. Beisner, J.

On this summary judgment motion, plaintiffs raise a novel issue, one not addressed in any reported decisions. In February 1983, the plaintiffs purchased a 1983 Ford Ranger pickup truck from defendant Johnson Ford. This lawsuit arises out of the difficulties plaintiffs subsequently experienced with that vehicle.

The dispute between plaintiffs and Ford Motor Company was reviewed by the Ford Consumer Appeals Board *(see,*General Business Law § 198-a [g]). By letter dated June 12, *771984, the Board determined that the vehicle should be replaced by Ford Motor Company. General Business Law § 198-a (h) mandates a manufacturer’s compliance with the terms of this arbitration decision, if the consumer áccepts it. Consumers are expressly granted the option to seek rights or remedies available by law.

Plaintiffs elected to bring this action for breach of warranties, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking, *inter alia,*incidental and consequential damages. Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment against defendant Ford Motor Company and contend that, by virtue of the determination of the Ford Consumer Appeals Board, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to defendant Ford’s liability. They concede that the Board’s determination does not constitute an arbitration agreement, but argue that the settlement offer is equivalent to an admission of liability by defendant Ford that is binding on the defendant in any subsequent legal proceeding.

Plaintiff’s interpretation of the effect that should be given the Board’s decision renders the entire dispute resolution scheme meaningless. Its decision was specifically described as an offer *(see,*June 12, 1984 letter of Ford Consumer Appeals Board). Although this decision is binding *as an offer*on Ford Motor Company, if the consumer accepts it, there is no statutory basis for concluding that it conclusively establishes the manufacturer’s liability. The public policy favoring the informal resolution of disputes would be thwarted if the settlement offer proposed by the dispute resolution board was deemed an admission of liability by the manufacturer. What consumer, with the manufacturer’s liability assured, would not forego the proposed settlement offer to seek greater damages in a court of law? The dispute resolution procedure would be reduced to a mechanism whereby a plaintiff can proceed to trial on the issue of damages without establishing liability before a trier of fact.

Once the consumer pursues his remedies in a court of law, he must be put to his proof like any other litigant. Since the submissions raise triable issues of fact with respect to defendant Ford’s liability, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied. (CPLR 3212.)
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3087

___________ Roger Johnson; Ronald Farmer; * Curt Brink; Christopher Trail, * * Plaintiffs, * * Gerald Porter, * * Appellant, * * Francis Kamuf; Willie Wright, and all * those prisoners similarly situated within * the Missouri Department of Corrections * or held by officers or agents of the State * of Missouri who are affected by this * litigation, * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * * Dora B. Schriro, Superintendent; * Michael Groose; Lynda S. Taylor; * Steven E. Moore, Darin Morgan, * * Appellees. *

___________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the No. 99-3088 Western District of Missouri.

___________ Roger Johnson; Ronald Farmer; Curt * Brink; Christopher Trail; Gerald Porter, * [UNPUBLISHED]-2- * Plaintiffs, * * Francis Kamuf, * * Appellant, * * Willie Wright, and all those prisoners * similarily situated within the Missouri * Department of Corrections or held by * officers or agents of the State of * Missouri who are affected by this * litigation, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Dora B. Schriro, Superintendent; * Michael Groose; Lynda S. Taylor; * Steven E. Moore; Darin Morgan, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 5, 2000 Filed: May 15, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. GeraldPorter and Francis Kamuf, Missouri inmates incarcerated at the Western Missouri Correctional Center (WMCC), appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.-3-

Appellants also move to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. We grant them permission to proceed IFP, leaving the fee-collection details to the district court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Further, after careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the district court as to Porter, because the record reveals that he has not exhausted his administrativeremedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. However, we reversethe judgment of the district court as to Kamuf, and remand so that he may proceedon the merits, because he exhausted his administrative remedies before the district court dismissed the complaint. See Williams v. Norris , 176 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). Accordingly, we grant appellants’ requests to proceed IFP on appeal; and we affirm the judgment of the district court in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.