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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45612

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL PAUL FRIEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: September 25, 2018

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Eric J. Wildman, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and sentence and denial of Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Michael Paul Friel was found guilty of grand theft. Idaho Code § 18-2407(1)(b)(1). The 

district court sentenced Friel to a unified fourteen-year sentence, with six years determinate. 

Friel filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Friel appeals.

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. 

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, 
2

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.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Friel’s Rule 35 motion. A 

motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to 

the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); 

State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 

motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional 

information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. 

Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including 

any new information submitted with Friel’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion 

has been shown. 

Therefore, Friel’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order 

denying Friel’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.
April Lashonda RIDEOUT v. STATE

CR-15-1494

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
,*tatz of NPfu Arxzq 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

JON S. CORZINE 

Governor 

Division of Air Quality 

Air Quality Permitting Element 

Bureau of Technical Services 

401 E. State Street 

P.O. Box 027 

Trenton, NJ 08625-027 

Phone: (609) 292-9258 

June 23, 2009 

Ronald J. Borsellino, Acting Director 

Division of Environmental Planning and Protection 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 2 

290 Broadway 

New York, New York 10007-1866 

Dear Acting Director Borsellino: 

MARK N. MAURIELLO 

Commissioner 

On April 21, 2009 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

sent Acting Regional Administrator Pavlou a revision to the New Jersey State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) incorporating rule changes updating the Reasonably Available Control Technology 

(RACT) requirements for fourteen (14) source categories. On June 4, 2009 you sent a letter to 

Department Commissioner Mark Mauriello requesting Department staff to forward copies of the 

codified versions of each amended rule as soon as they become available . 

The codified versions of each amended rule are attached herein. 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (609) 633-1120. 

Sincerely yours, 

0-~. 7L G,~w 

Allan H. Willinger, 

Co-Rule Manager 

Enclosures: 

The following subchapters of Chapter 27 "Air Pollution Control": 

Subchapter 4 "Control and Prohibition of Particles from Combustion of Fuel" 

Subchapter 8 "Permits and Certificates for Minor Facilities (and Major Facilities Without an 

Operating Permit)" 

Subchapter 10 "Sulfur in Solid Fuels" 

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer . Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable 
Subchapter 16 "Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds" 

Subchapter 19 "Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen" 

Subchapter 21 "Emission Statements" 

The following subchapter of Chapter 27A "Air Administrative Procedures and Penalties": 

Subchapter 3 "Civil Administrative Penalties and Requests for Adjudicatory Hearings" 

c: Raymond W. Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, USEPA Region 11 

Nancy Wittenberg, Assistant Commissioner, w/o enclosures 

William O'Sullivan, Director, w/o enclosures 
bc : Chris Salmi, Assistant Director, AQM, w/o enclosures 

Danny Wong, Acting Bureau Chief, AQM, w/o enclosures 

John Gorgol, Supervisor, AQM, w/o enclosures 

John Preczewski, Assistant Director, AQP, w/o enclosures 

Frank Steitz, Acting Bureau Chief, AQP, w/o enclosures 

John Jenks, Chief, AQP, w/o enclosures 

Joel Leon, Section Chief, AQP, w/o enclosures 

Kevin Greener, Co-Rule Manager, AQP, w/o enclosures 

DAG Eileen Kelly, w/o enclosures 

SIP file, with enclosures (Willa Williams) 

Rule file, SIP correspondence (currently Allan Willinger), with enclosures
```

[Federal Register: January 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 10)]
[Notices]               
[Page 2511]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ja10-38]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DoD-2009-HA-0137

 
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 
16, 2010.
    Title and OMB Number: An Outcome Evaluation of the SOS Suicide 
Prevention Program; OMB Control Number 0720-TBD.
    Type of Request: New.
    Number of respondents: 399.
    Responses Per Respondent: 2.
    Annual Responses: 798.
    Average Burden Per Response: 1 Hour.
    Annual Burden Hours: 798 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to evaluate the effectiveness of the SOS Suicide Prevention Program 
which is used as suicide prevention programming in middle and high 
schools throughout the country. The surveys are completed in school and 
then returned to the University of Connecticut's Institute for Public 
Health Research for analysis.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: Semi-annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. John Kraemer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Kraemer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: January 6, 2010.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-596 Filed 1-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamar Rashaad HODGE, a/k/a Black J, a/k/a Dennis Jordan, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7037

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Jamar Rashaad Hodge, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

*255Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamar Rashaad Hodge seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on.the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hodge has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,612-01

EX PARTE PAUL GOVEA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR16-0180-01 IN THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM PARKER COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and

the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. Under Article

11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a district clerk is required to forward to this Court,

among other things, “the application, any answers filed, any motions filed, transcripts of all

depositions and hearings, any affidavits, and any other matters such as official records used by the

court in resolving issues of fact.” Id. at § 3(d); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). The record

forwarded to this Court appears, however, to be incomplete. The findings of fact and conclusions

of law from the trial court mention an affidavit filed by appellate counsel, but this document is

missing from the record.
2

The district clerk shall either forward to this Court the affidavit from appellate counsel or

certify in writing that this document is not part of the record. The district clerk shall comply with

this order within thirty days from the date of this order.

Filed: March 16, 2022

Do not publish
----

----

----

----

|         If to      Employer:         CytRx      Corporation        11726      San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 650        Los      Angeles, California  90049        Facsimile:                                (310)      826-5529        Attention:                                Chief      Executive Officer |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|          If to      Employee:         __________________        __________________        __________________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

----

|   | “EMPLOYER” CytRx      Corporation  By:      /s/ STEVEN A.      KRIEGSMANSteven A.KriegsmanChief Executive      Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   “EMPLOYEE”  /s/ BENJAMIN S.      LEVIN                                                               Benjamin      S. Levin |

----
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1433 

To reauthorize the Helen Keller National Center for Youths and Adults 

Who Are Deaf-Blind. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2021 

Mr. POCAN (for himself, Mr. COLE, Mr. SUOZZI, and Mr. FITZPATRICK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Helen Keller National Center for Youths 

and Adults Who Are Deaf-Blind. 

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 ‘‘Helen Keller National 

5 Center Reauthorization Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HELEN KELLER NATIONAL CENTER REAUTHOR7 IZED. 

8 The first sentence of section 205(a) of the Helen Kel9 ler National Center Act (29 U.S.C. 1904(a)) is amended 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1433 IH

1 by striking ‘‘1999 through 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2021 

2 through 2025’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000883476
<NAME> CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,171
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             765
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               142,937
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      5,391
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,413
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,391
<LOANS>                                         43,613
<ALLOWANCE>                                        758
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 213,714
<DEPOSITS>                                     109,122
<SHORT-TERM>                                    79,987
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,212
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,741
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,653
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 213,714
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,088
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   73
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    74
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,308
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,110
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,206
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,102
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,234
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,137,121
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,137,121
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,284,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.83
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       364
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,581
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   699
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  758
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               704
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             54
        

</TABLE>
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014-0925 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-229-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Incorporate AFM 

TR in AFM 

Emergency

Procedure

1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 91 $7,735.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $7,735

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Stuart A. Tashlik, as Chief Financial Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated:  November 13, 2002 |                                           
|------------------------- | ------------------------------------------
|                          | /s/  Stuart A. Tashlik                    
|                          |                                           
|                          | Stuart A. Tashlik, Chief Financial Officer
AVENTURA BAY HOLDINGS, LLC, and Aventura Bay Villas Corporation, Appellants, v. WELLINGTON LIFE CARE ASSOCIATES, LLC, and Devonshire at Wellington Green, LLC, Appellees.

No. 4D17-2002

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 3, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Dated: August 27, 2007
    /s/ Josef H. von RickenbachJosef H. von RickenbachChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer