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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40351

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LARRY J. MUNYON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 616

Filed: August 6, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Kootenai County. Hon. John R. Stegner, District Judge. Hon. James D. Stow, 

Magistrate.

Order of the district court, in its appellate capacity, affirming the magistrate 

court’s denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea, affirmed.

R. D. Watson, Coeur d’Alene, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Daphne J. Huang, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

GRATTON, Judge

Larry J. Munyon appeals from the district court’s order affirming the magistrate court’s 

denial of his motion to withdraw guilty plea. We affirm.

Munyon pled guilty to misdemeanor driving under the influence and requested a withheld 

judgment. The magistrate accepted his guilty plea, but denied his request for a withheld 

judgment. Judgment was entered on November 21, 2011. On January 3, 2012, Munyon filed a 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea which the magistrate denied. Munyon appealed the denial of 

his motion to withdraw guilty plea, and the district court affirmed. This appeal followed. 

As the State points out, the magistrate court did not have jurisdiction to hear Munyon’s 

motion to withdraw guilty plea. “Absent a statute or rule extending its jurisdiction,” the trial 

court’s jurisdiction ends “either by expiration of the time for appeal or affirmance of the 

judgment on appeal.” State v. Jakoski, 139 Idaho 352, 355, 79 P.3d 711, 714 (2003). Since the 

judgment in this matter was entered on November 21, 2011, pursuant to Idaho Appellate 
2

Rule 14(a), the magistrate court’s jurisdiction expired forty-two (42) days later, or on January 2, 

2012. Idaho Criminal Rule 33(c) does not include any provision extending the jurisdiction of the 

trial court for the purpose of hearing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Jakoski, 139 Idaho at 

355, 79 P.3d at 714. Therefore, the magistrate court did not have jurisdiction to consider 

Munyon’s motion to withdraw guilty plea filed on January 3, 2012.1 

The magistrate court lacked jurisdiction to hear Munyon’s motion and therefore, we 

affirm the district court’s order, in its appellate capacity, affirming the magistrate court’s denial 

of Munyon’s motion to withdraw guilty plea. 

Chief Judge GUTIERREZ and Judge LANSING CONCUR.

 

1 Munyon also filed a notice of appeal on February 28, 2012, purportedly from the 

November 21, 2011, judgment. This notice of appeal was similarly not timely. See I.A.R. 14(a).
#### In STATE v. BURGWYN, from Halifax:

*Confessions.*

The decision in *State*v. *Andrew,*Phil., 205, and *State*v. *S/ter,*85 ST. C., 585, relating to confessions of defendants as evidence, approved.

Ruffin, J.

The case discloses but a single exception, and that, in the opinion of this court, cannot be sustained.

The state proposed to give in evidence certain confessions of the defendant, .and, upon objection being raised to their competence, examined two witnesses, both of whom testified that they were voluntary, and, free of any inducement of either hope or fear. Thereupon the court admitted the evidence and the defendant excepted.

After oth ex evidence for .the prosecution., the state rested *573its case, and the defendant then introduced a witness who' testified that the confessions deposed to by the witnesses for' the state had been extorted by fear.

So far as we can see from the case, no request was made’ to the court to reconsider its ruling as to the admission of the confessions, after the conflicting evidence bearing on the point was heard. But we do not stop to consider that, for conceding that there had been such request, and that His Honor had declined, We do not see how it could affect our decision.

What facts amount to such threats or promises as to exclude confessions as not being voluntary, is a question of law’, says Pearson, C. J., in *State*v. *Andrew,*Phil., 205. So too, whether there be any evidence tending to show that confessions were not voluntary, is a question of law, and the’ decision of the court in regard to them may be reviewed in this court. But whether the evidence, if true, proves these facts, and whether the witnesses giving the testimony in regard to the facts are credible or not, and in a case of a conflict of testimony, which witness should be believed by the court, are all questions of fact to be decided by the court, the decision of which cannot be reviewed.

To the same effect are *State*v. *Vann,*82 N. C., 31, and *State*v. *Efler,*85 N. C., 585.

No error. Affirmed-.

In *King*v. *Ellington,*from Wake:

Ashe, J.

There was no exception taken by the plaintiff to the charge of the court or its ruling upon any point; and the plaintiff having shown no error, “ it must be remembered that if the appellant fails to assign and prove *574an error, the judgment, although it *may*be erroneous must be affirmed.” *Utley*v. *Foy,*70 N. C., 303; *Swepson*v. Sum*mey,*74 N. C, 551; *Stephenson*v. *Jones,*1 Dev., 15.

The judgment of -the superior court of Wake must there* fore be affirmed.

No error. . Affirmed.

In *State*v. *Conway,*from New Hanover:

Per Curiam.

This case is governed by *State*v. *Hughes,*83 N. C., 665, and for reasons there given, the judgment is affirmed.

In *State*v. *Sheppard,*frm Carteret.

There is no statement of the case accompanying the reo* ord,and the judgment below is affirmed.
# C_2004262EN.01000401.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-292/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Meiland Azewijn BV v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (1)

1

(Excise duties - Mineral oils used in agricultural works - Directive 92/81/EEC - Article 8a - Marking in the Member State where released for consumption - Prohibition on marking in the Member State of use - Directive 95/60/EC)

(2004/C 262/06)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-292/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), by decision of 6 August 2002, received on 13 August 2002, in the proceedings Meiland Azewijn BV v Hauptzollamt Duisburg — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | Article 8a(1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, is to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from subjecting to excise duty mineral oil, whether marked or unmarked, contained in the standard tank of a commercial motor vehicle, such as agricultural machinery, and used as fuel not only to move the vehicle but also in order to utilise it for other purposes, such as agricultural work, when that mineral oil has been lawfully released for consumption in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 8a(1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, is to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from subjecting to excise duty mineral oil, whether marked or unmarked, contained in the standard tank of a commercial motor vehicle, such as agricultural machinery, and used as fuel not only to move the vehicle but also in order to utilise it for other purposes, such as agricultural work, when that mineral oil has been lawfully released for consumption in another Member State.

| 2. | The prohibition in Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 as amended may be relied on by individuals in proceedings before national courts in order to contest national rules that are incompatible with that prohibition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The prohibition in Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 as amended may be relied on by individuals in proceedings before national courts in order to contest national rules that are incompatible with that prohibition.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

1

---
Exhibit 21.1
  Subsidiaries of
    Imation Corp.
  Country or State inWhich Subsidiary

Percentage ofwas Organized

OwnershipImation Enterprises Corp

U.S.


100Imation Electronics Mexico

Mexico


100Imation Latin America Corp

U.S.


100Imation Mexico S.A. de C.V.

Mexico


100Imation do Brasil Ltda

Brazil


100Imation Chile S.A.

Chile


100Imation Latin America Marketing S.A.

Panama


100Imation Mercosur Trading S.A.

Uruguay


100Imation Funding Corp

U.S.


100Imation Government LLC

U.S.


100Memorex Products Inc.

U.S.


100Imation Online Services Corporation

U.S.


100IMN Data Storage LLC

U.S.


100Imation Data Storage Holdings CV

Netherlands


100Imation Europe BV

Netherlands


100TME GmbH

Germany


100Imation Deutschland GmbH

Germany


100Imation U.K. Limited

United Kingdom


100Imation S.r.l.

Italy


100Imation Middle East FZE

United Arab Emirates


100Imation Polska Sp. Z.O.O.

Poland


100Memorex Products Europe Ltd.

United Kingdom


100Imation Holdings Pte Ltd.

Singapore


100Imation Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.

Singapore


100Imation ANZ Pty Ltd.

Australia


100Imation (Australia) Pty Ltd

Australia


100Imation Singapore Pte Ltd.

Singapore


100Imation (Malaysia) SDN BHD

Malaysia


100Imation India Private Ltd.

India


100Imation Corporation Japan

Japan


100Imation Korea, Inc.

South Korea


100Imation Hong Kong Ltd.

Hong Kong


100Imation (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.

China


100Imation (Guangzhou) International Co. Ltd.

China


100Imation Information Technology (Beijing) Ltd.

China


100Imation Taiwan Ltd.

Taiwan


100Memorex Products (Taiwan) Inc.

Taiwan


100Imation (Thailand) Ltd.

Thailand


100Imation Argentina S.A.C.I.F.I.A.

Argentina


100Imation Colombia S.A.

Colombia


100Imation Panama S.A.

Panama


100Imation Canada Inc.

Canada


100Imation Ireland Ltd.

Ireland


100Global Data Media FZ-LLC

United Arab Emirates


51
*MBI International FZ-LLC

United Arab Emirates


51
*MBI International Services Private Ltd.

India


51
*MBI India Marketing Private Ltd.

India


51
*Glyphics Media, Inc.

U.S.


51
*     *
    
    Global Data Media FZ-LLC and its subsidiaries are joint ventures.
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM August 2023

I.3 (+) Upland 

wildlife 

populations and 

diversity

C.4 (+/-) Income and income 

stability 

(individuals and community) 

C.6 (+) Preservation of 

infrastructure; 

(-) community 

maintenance costs

I.7 (-) Sediments and 

sediment-borne 

contaminants to 

receiving waters

I.2 (+) Soil quality

Initial setting: Any area needing 

treatment of concentrated water 

flow that is creating erosion, and 

where vegetative cover alone is not 

suitable

I.8 (-) 

Maintenance of 

drainage 

ditches and 

other structures I.5 (-) Net return

Start

1. Vegetative cover on 

side slopes

C.5 (+/-) Quality of 

receiving waters and 

aquatic habitats

C.1 (+) Air quality of 

the air shed

D.2 (+) Wildlife food 

and cover

D.3 (-) Land 

available for 

crop production

D.1 (+) Carbon 

sequestration

D.4 (+) Cost of 

installation and 

maintenance

I.6 (+/-) Soluble 

contaminants to 

receiving waters

C.2 (+) Health for 

humans, domestic 

and wild animals 

Lined Waterway or Outlet (468)

D.7 (-) Soil 

erosion 

(ephemeral gully 

and gully in 

channel) 

I.1 (-) Greenhouse 

gases

C.3 (+) Recreational 

opportunities

D.6 (+/-) Infiltration 

(cover dependent)

Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) 

(595)

Nutrient Management 

(590)

2. Wide, shallow channel with a nonerosive cover, often a combination of 

rock and vegetation

D.5 (-) Runoff 

velocity

D.8 (+) Conveyance of 

runoff water

I.9 (-) Localized 

flooding and 

ponding

I.10 (+) Plant 

productivity

I.4 (-) 

Potential 

income (-)

(+)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JASON KOKINDA,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 140 MM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 13th day of November, 2015, the Application f or Leave to File** 

**Original Process is** GRANTED **, and the Application for Exercise of King’s Bench or**

**Extraordinary Jurisdiction, the Application to Recuse, th e Application to Waive Service** 

**Requirements, and the Application for Immediate Hear ing are**  DENIED

**.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         37
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                   90
<INVENTORY>                                    2,940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         20,828
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 56,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          1
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       6
<OTHER-SE>                                     38,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   56,155
<SALES>                                        68,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               68,596
<CGS>                                          47,011
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  47,011
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               14,821
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,457
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,503
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,954
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,954
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.63


</TABLE>
*December*5, *1933.*

#### Geiger, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Will C. Gobel*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: The *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

For the respondent Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company: *Harvey M. Burns*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*—

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1
 PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our 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
 d) 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 fiscal 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
  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 management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Lawrence K. CohenLawrence K. CohenPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6055-6056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02147]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD716


Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting; Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of correction of a location of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) 
Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) will hold a meeting, 
which is open to the public.

DATES: The HMSMT will meet Wednesday, February 4 to Friday, February 6, 
2015. This meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. and continue until business 
is concluded on each day.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the following location on 
February 5th and 6th: Best Western Plus Inn by the Sea, Wind and Sea 
Room, 7830 Fay Avenue, La Jolla, CA 92037. The meeting will be held at 
the following location on February 4th only: NMFS Pacific Room, 
Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, 
CA 92037-1509.

[[Page 6056]]

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 
101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; 
telephone: (503) 820-2422.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting for February 4th only has 
changed to a different location due to construction of the hotel. See 
ADDRESSES for the meeting locations.
    The original notice published in the Federal Register on January 
15, 2015 (80 FR 2399). All other previous-published information remains 
unchanged.

Special Accommodations

    The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 
5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 30, 2015.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-02147 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2208

CRUZ ANDRES VENTURA-ORELLANA, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-629-255) Submitted: March 20, 2000 Decided: April 24, 2000 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.Paul S. Allen, Pauline M. Schwartz, PAUL, SHEARMAN, ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony C. Payne, 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).1 Section 307(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h). However, because this case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed, § 1253(h) is still applicable under the terms of the IIRIRA’s transitional rules. 2 Section 306(b) of the IIRIRA repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4), replacing it with 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4) (West 1999). Again, because Ventura-Orellana’s case was in transition at the time of the effective date of the IIRIRA, the transitional rules provide for judicial review under § 1105a(a)(4) as it existed before enactment of the IIRIRA. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(4). 2 PER CURIAM: Cruz Andres Ventura-Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his claims for political asylum, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158 (West 1999), and withholding of deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1994). 1 We find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994). 2 Accordingly, we deny Ventura-Orellana’s petition for review and affirm the Board’s order. 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
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALONZO GUTIERREZ, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1688 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed November 30, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Charles Sniffen, Judge. Alonzo Gutierrez, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Martinez v. State, 211 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2017); Daniel v. State, 935 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Steward v. State, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.