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

Docket No. 4628 8

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

DENNIS CARL BOTHWELL ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: April 2, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for driving under the influence of alcohol

, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; El iz abeth A. Allred

, 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; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Dennis Carl Bothwell pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol , Idaho
Code § 18

- 8004 . The district court imposed a unified six

- year sentence, with three years determinate, and retained jurisdiction

. Bothwell appeals, contending that his sentence is

excessive. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our stand ard 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.2 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, 1 70 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, Bothwell ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Derek LaVonn Berry, :

:

Plaintiff(s), :

: Case Number: 1:18cv459

vs. :

: Judge Susan J. Dlott

Aramark Services, Inc., :

:

Defendant(s). :

ORDER

The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been

settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action (including all claims by all parties) is hereby

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown

not later than July 8, 2019, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. The parties may

substitute a judgment entry contemplated by the settlement agreement upon approval of the

Court. Parties intending to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction to enforce a settlement should be

aware of Kokkonen v Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994), and

incorporate appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry.

This Court explicitly retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement reached by

the parties.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott___________

Susan J. Dlott

United States District Court

Case: 1:18-cv-00459-SJD-KLL Doc #: 33 Filed: 05/07/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 149
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 123 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 15, 2022

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
       Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1437.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of H.R. 1437, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall amend the title so as to read: ``Making further 
continuing appropria-

              

 tions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2023, and for other 
purposes.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 14, 2022.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Kevin F. McCumber,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, David R. Odenath, Jr.,
Chief Executive Officer and President of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the
Report) 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                           |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: August 11, 2008 |  |                           |  |                                      
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ David R. Odenath, Jr.
|                       |  | Name:                     |  | David R. Odenath, Jr.                
|                       |  | Title:                    |  | Chief Executive Officer and President

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Case: 1:18-cv-00278-SJD-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/06/18 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 15
Case: 1:18-cv-00278-SJD-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/06/18 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 16
Case: 1:18-cv-00278-SJD-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/06/18 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 17
Case: 1:18-cv-00278-SJD-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/06/18 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 18
Case: 1:18-cv-00278-SJD-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 07/06/18 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 19
**Exhibit 24****POWER OF ATTORNEY**       Each of the undersigned officers and directors of Applied Innovation Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), hereby appoints William H. Largent and Curtis A. Loveland as his trueand lawful attorneys-in-fact, or any of them, with power to act without the other, as his true andlawful attorney-in-fact, in his name and on his behalf, and in any and all capacities stated below,to sign and to cause to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the Company’s annualreport on Form 10-K, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and any and all amendmentsthereto, hereby granting unto said attorneys, and to each of them, full power and authority to doand perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any and all such capacities, every actand thing whatsoever necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully as each of theundersigned could or might do in person, hereby granting to each such attorney full power ofsubstitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying all that either such attorney or his substitutemay do by virtue hereof.       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of Attorney in counterparts ifnecessary, effective as of March 14, 2007.DIRECTORS/OFFICERS:   Signature Title   /s/ William H. Largent Chief Executive Officer and Director           William H. Largent  (PrincipalExecutive Officer)   /s/ Julia A. Fratianne Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer           Julia A. Fratianne  (PrincipalFinancial and Principal Accounting Officer)   /s/ Thomas W. Huseby           Thomas W. Huseby Director    /s/ Kenneth E. Jones           Kenneth E. Jones Director    /s/ Curtis A. Loveland           Curtis A. Loveland Director    /s/ Gerard B. Moersdorf, Jr.           Gerard B. Moersdorf, Jr. Chairman of the Board    /s/ Alexander B. Trevor           Alexander B. Trevor Director
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ARNOLD ANDERSON,

Plaintiff, 

v.

JONATHAN SPOLJARIK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-380

JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

Magistrate Judge Bowman

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s March 6, 2020, 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 74). The Magistrate recommends the 

following:

1. The Court should GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48): 

a. The Court should DENY Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims against 

Defendants Hatfield and Spoljaric and Plaintiffs’ First

Amendment claim against Spoljaric because of the significant 

issues of material fact; 

b. The Court should DENY Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment on Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive and declaratory

relief, but without prejudice to renew once counsel have been 

heard on the issue of mootness;

c. The Court should GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment in all other respects;

2. The Court should DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 61) and 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 69); and

3. The Court should DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 54). 
2

The R&R advised both parties that a failure to object within the 14 days 

specified by the R&R may result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the 

right to District Court review. (See Doc. 74, #890). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140, 149–53 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), 

intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no 

objections are filed.”); Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019) 

(noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R ... is forfeiture, 

not waiver”) (emphasis original); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The time for filing 

objections has passed and none have been filed.

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations, and 

DENIES the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) as to (1) the 

Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Hatfield and Spoljaric, and (2) the 

First Amendment claim against Spoljaric; DENIES Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) on the claims for declaratory or injunctive relief, but 

without prejudice to the Defendants’ ability to raise those arguments later; GRANTS

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) in all other respects; DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 61); DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Doc. 69); and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 54), but without 

prejudice to the Plaintiff’s ability to re-raise the arguments therein at a later time.

SO ORDERED.

April 2, 2020 

DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Lyric Jene' Patrick,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 2:18-cv-221

Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michaei H. Watson

Defendant. Magistrate Judge Deavers

OPINION AND ORDER

On October 21, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Deavers issued a

Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court reverse the

Commissioner of Social Security's ("Commissioner") non-disability finding and

remand this case to the Commissioner and the ALJ for further consideration

consistent with the R&R. ECF No. 17.

The R&R notified the parties of their right to file objections to the R&R

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). R&R 15-16, ECF No. 17. The R&R further

advised the parties that the failure to object to the R&R within fourteen days

would result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the R&R.

Id. The deadline for filing such objections has passed, and no objections were

filed.

Having received no objections, the R&R is ADOPTED. The

Commissioner's non-disability finding is REVERSED and this case is
REMANDED to the Commissioner and the ALJ for further consideration

consistent with the R&R.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Michael H. Watson

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:18-cv-221 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1Docket IndexEPA-R10-OAR-2012-0557DOC #DATEFROM TO SUBJECT1 4/4/2014 Claudia Vaupel, EPA Docket EPAR10-OAR-2012-0557Combined TIP Submittal Components – Most Recent Versions2 4/4/2014 Claudia Vaupel, EPA Docket EPAR10-OAR-2012-0557Table of Swinomish TIP Submittals – Versions & Components3 3/14/2014 Claudia Vaupel, EPA Scott Andrews,SITCTIP Implementation Agreements between EPA and SITC4 5/19/2010 - - Memorandum of Agreement Between the Swinomish Indian TribalCommunity and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10Regarding Criminal Enforcement of Certain Sections of the Clean Air Act onthe Swinomish Reservation5 06/28/2012 Brian Cladoosby,Chairman of theSwinomish TribalSenateLisa Jackson,EPA[DennisMcLerran, EPA]Cover letter and TIP submittal6 09/24/2013 Scott Andrews, SITC Claudia Vaupel,EPAEmail and supplementary submittal7 11/18/2013 Scott Andrews, SITC Claudia Vaupel,EPAMemorandum and supplementary submittal8 1/28/2014 Alicia Engstrom,SITCClaudia Vaupel,EPAEmail and supplementary submittal
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Trustees 

Universal Health Realty Income Trust: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-143944 and 333-57815) on Form S-8 and in the registrationstatements (Nos. 333-81763, 333-60638 and 333-161330) on Form S-3 of Universal Health Realty Income Trust of our reports dated March 11, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Universal Health Realty Income Trust as ofDecember 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, the related financial statement schedule, andthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Universal Health Realty Income Trust. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 11, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-120-1

Ernesto Ortega Martinez 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 28) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: December 18, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
----

| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Abaxis, Inc.; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

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

| 4. | The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have: |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  July 2, 2013 |   | /s/ Clinton H. Severson               |  |
|--------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--|
|                     |   | Clinton H. Severson                   |  |
|                     |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |  |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGHEI VERLAN (2)

PHYLLIS RICCI QUINCONES (3)

IEVGEN KARIAKA (6)

AKHLIDDIN KALONOV (7)

JESSICA MARTIN (11),

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cr-109

JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

ORDER

This cause came before the Court for a Preliminary Pretrial Conference by 

telephone on January 12, 2021, at 12:30 p.m. before Judge Douglas R. Cole. The 

Government advised the Court that it is engaged in plea negotiations with 

Defendants Verlan, Quincones, Kalonov, and Martin and that Defendant Kariaka is 

still working through the voluminous discovery. The parties requested a 60-day 

continuance to allow counsel for Verlan, Quincones, Kalonov, and Martin an 

opportunity to continue plea negotiations and counsel for Kariaka to further review 

the discovery and determine how to proceed. After discussion, the parties agreed to a 

Telephone Status Conference on March 24, 2021, at 12:30 p.m. There were no 

objections to the speedy trial clock being tolled through the next status conference.

Therefore, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the 

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendants in a speedy 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 171 Filed: 01/12/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 884
2 

trial, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (B)(i), as failure to grant the continuance 

would prevent Defendants Verlan, Quincones, Kalonov, and Martin from exploring a 

possible resolution of the matter and would prevent Defendant Kariaka from 

reviewing the discovery and determining how to proceed, and thus would likely lead 

to a miscarriage of justice. Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the 

continuance and also finds the period of time elapsing from January 12, 2021, until 

March 24, 2021, is properly, and shall be, excluded from the speedy trial calculation. 

SO ORDERED.

January 12, 2021

DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 171 Filed: 01/12/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 885
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

THOMAS L. RYTHER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-56022

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-04581-JHN-JCG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Thomas L. Ryther appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment for the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in his action seeking a refund

of trust-fund recovery penalties imposed under 26 U.S.C. § 6672. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Buffalow v. United

FILED

OCT 04 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-56022

States, 109 F.3d 570, 572 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the IRS on

Ryther’s refund claims because Ryther failed to establish a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether he was a “responsible person” at Knight Steel who

acted willfully in failing to collect or pay over withheld trust-fund taxes. Purcell v.

United States, 1 F.3d 932, 936-38 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing “responsible person”

and “willfulness” elements required for imposition of personal liability under

§ 6672). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the IRS on its

counterclaim to reduce the unpaid assessments to judgment because the IRS

introduced evidence of the assessments, and Ryther failed to present sufficient

evidence to refute the presumption of their validity. See Oliver v. United States,

921 F.2d 916, 919-20 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth burdens of proof in tax

collection actions, and concluding that assessments were sufficiently supported by

evidence that corporate bookkeeper paid other bills with knowledge that corporate

taxes were unpaid). Contrary to Ryther’s contention, the district court properly

determined that there was no triable dispute as to whether the IRS properly sent

Ryther the notices required by § 6672(b). See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6672(b) & 6212(b)(1)

(requisite notice is sufficient if mailed to taxpayer’s last known address). 
3 11-56022

Ryther’s contentions that he is no longer liable for the trust-fund taxes

because of the IRS’s alleged failures to accept a partial payment and to collect the

taxes during Knight Steel’s bankruptcy proceedings are unpersuasive. See, e.g.,

Purcell, 1 F.3d at 939 (for government to be estopped, aggrieved party must

demonstrate “affirmative conduct going beyond mere negligence” and “that the

government’s act will cause a serious injustice and the imposition of estoppel will

not unduly harm the public interest” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

AFFIRMED.