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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42545

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LUIS ANGEL SAUCEDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 685

Filed: October 30, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge. 

Appeal from judgment of conviction, dismissed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Luis Angel Saucedo pleaded guilty to injury to child, felony, Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). 

The parties entered into a binding I.C.R. 11 plea agreement. Pursuant to the plea agreement, 

Saucedo waived his right to appeal his sentence. The district court imposed a unified ten-year 

sentence, with four years determinate. Saucedo appeals, contending that his sentence is 

excessive. 

We hold that Saucedo’s appellate challenge to the excessiveness of his sentence has been 

waived by his plea agreement. See I.C.R. 11(f)(1); State v. Rodriguez, 142 Idaho 786, 787, 133 

P.3d 1251, 1252 (Ct. App. 2006). Saucedo’s plea agreement contained a clause which required

Saucedo to waive his right to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, we dismiss Saucedo’s appeal.
#### Lyle Mark COULTAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven PAYNE, individually and in his official capacity as Oregon State Crime Laboratory Detective; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35704

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 30, 2017

Lyle Mark Coultas, Pro Se

Dustin Buehler, Denise Gale Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General,' Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees Steven Payne, Carroll Tichenor, Yamhill County District Attorney’s Office, State of Oregon

Judy C. Lucas, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendant-Appel-lee Department of the Oregon State Police

Gerald L. Warren, Attorney, Law Office of Gerald Warren and Associates, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees Curt Gilbert, Yamhill County Jail, Russell W. Ludwig, Yamhill County Sheriff Department

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Lyle Mark Coultas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of due process, conversion under state law, and an independent claim of fraud on the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations and for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *Ventura Mobilehome Cmtys. Owners Ass’n v. City of San Buenaventura,*371 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Coultas’s conversion claim as barred by the Oregon Tort Claims Act’s (“OTCA”) two-year statute of limitations. *See*Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.275(9); *Bell v. Tri-Cty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or.,*353 Or. 535, 301 P.3d 901, 908 (2013) (the OTCA supersedes statutes of limitations that might otherwise apply in tort actions against public bodies and their officers and employees).

Dismissal of Coultas’s claim to set aside a prior judgment for fraud on the court was proper because Coultas failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); *see also Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 20Ó3) (“Fraud on the court requires a grave *750miscarriage of justice.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v, Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as unsupported by the record Coultas’s contention concerning judicial bias.

AFFIRMED,

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 quarterly report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John F. Olmstead, President and Director of CAI Equipment Leasing
V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, 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 Partnership.



By:      /s/ John F. Olmstead                             Dated: August 14, 2003
         --------------------
         John F. Olmstead
Title:   President and Director


                                       19
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04161]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Resource Related Research 
Projects (R24 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: March 22, 2022.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G33B, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: John C. Pugh, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G33B, Rockville, MD 
20852, (301) 435-2398, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#41313426292b2e292f012232336f2f28296f262e37"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3a3a6b4bbb9bcbbbd93b0a0a1fdbdbabbfdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 23, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-04161 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
This opinion is subject to administrative corr ection before final disposition.

Before GASTON
, BAKER , and STEWART Appellate Military Judges

_________________________


### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
Edwin G. SAETEROSLEMA Private First Class (E

- 2 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

No. 20 2100063

Decided: 30 August 2021
Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge : Terrance J. Reese
Sentence adjudged 9 December 2020 by a special court

- martial convened at Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 6 months
, and a bad

- conduct discharge.
For Appellant: Commander Kyle C alvin Kneese , JAGC, USN
For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.United States v. Saeteroslema , NMCCA No. 20 2100063 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________

PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s s ubstantial rights occurred. 1
T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
Exhibit 10.5

 

DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

 

On April 19, 2012, the Governance, Compensation and Nominations Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of First Data Holdings Inc. (“Holdings”), the parent company of First Data Corporation (the “Company”), approved a special bonus payment of $135,000 to James R. Fisher, a member of the Boards of Directors and Chairperson of the Audit Committees of the Company and Holdings.  The action did not impact any of the previously reported compensation of the directors of the Company.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Docket ID: DoD-2022-OS-0023]

# AGENCY:

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).

# ACTION:

60-Day information collection notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Defense is correcting a notice that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         on February 23, 2022. Subsequent to publication of the notice, the DoD discovered that the Docket ID was not listed correctly. DoD is issuing this correction to provide the correct Docket ID.                    

# DATES:

This correction is effective on March 2, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Toppings, 571-372-0485.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In FR Doc. 2022-03782 appearing at 87 FR 10179-10180 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Wednesday, February 23, 2022, the Docket ID is changed to read [Docket ID: DoD-2022-OS-0023] as set forth above.                

Dated: February 23, 2022.

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2022-04316 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
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






I, Bruce E. Fischer, Chairman of Westmont Resources Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the fiscal year ended 31 May 2010, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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











By: /s/  BRUCE E. FISCHER


Name:   BRUCE E. FISCHER


Title:    Chief Executive Officer / Managing Director


(Principal Executive Officer)





Date: Tuesday, 14 September 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Leroy K. SMALLS, II a/k/a Leroy K. Smalls, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF KIRKLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 17-6472

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Leroy K. Smalls, II, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Catoe Bigelow, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*656PER CURIAM:

Leroy K. Smalls, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 petition 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 Smalls has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Smalls’ motion to amend his informal brief, 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*
10.2 - Third Amendment to Employment Agreement by and between Registrant and John A. Moore dated March 1, 2012*


















THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of March 1, 2012 (the “Amendment”) by and between ACORN ENERGY, INC., a Delaware corporation (with its successors and assigns, referred to as the “Corporation”) and JOHN A. MOORE hereinafter referred to as “Moore.”


Preliminary Statement


The Corporation and Moore previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of March 4, 2008 (the “Agreement”), as previously amended, and the Corporation and Moore hereby desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.


Agreement


Moore and the Corporation therefore agree as follows:


		
	1.
	Extension of Term.  The first sentence of Section 1, Commencement of Employment Term, is hereby deleted and the following substituted in its place:




The parties acknowledge that MOORE commenced employment with the Corporation as Chief Executive Officer prior to the date hereof and shall continue to serve in that capacity until the earlier of any “Extension Term End” or the date his employment is terminated by either or both of the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement other than this Section 1(the “Term”). Notwithstanding anything in Section 6 to the contrary, the Term shall end as of the 4th day of any month (the “Extension Term End”) if either the Corporation or Moore shall have given the other written notice of termination 10 days prior to such date.
    
		
	2.
	Ratification.  Moore and the Corporation hereby ratify and confirm the terms of the Agreement as amended hereinabove.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.


                                            
JOHN A. MOORE


ACORN ENERGY, INC.




By:                          
Heather K. Mallard
Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary




By:                          
Richard Giacco, Director on behalf
of the Board of Directors
#### The State v. Broadwell.

Appeal: criminal case: incomplete record: no appearance for appellant: no error found.

*Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court*— Hon. C. F. Loofbourow, Judge.

Wednesday, December 21, 1887.

Indictment for obtaining money under false pretenses. Trial by jury, verdict guilty, and judgment. The defendant appeals.

No appearance for appellant.

*A. J. Baker, Attorney-general,*for the State.

*766Seevers, J.

This cause was submitted on a written transcript, and the record before us contains the indictment, charge of the court and motion for anew trial, which sets up several grounds upon which a new trial was asked and overruled. In the absence of any other showing, we may well suppose the errors relied on are therein stated. We are unable to determine whether the first, second, third, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth grounds of the motion axe well taken or not, for the reason that the transcript fails to show that any such rulings were made as are complained of.Jandalso because the evidence introduced at the trial is not contained therein. The remaining grounds on which a new trial was asked all relate to the instructions which it is said are erroneous. As abstract propositions it seems to us the instructions are correct and the presumption obtains that the court was justified in giving them under the evidence, and therefore we are unable to say the instructions are not correct in every particular. We are unable to find any error in the record, and therefore the judgment of the'district court is

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SCB COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
JULY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       5,467,481
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               33,975,338
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,062,594
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,953,255
<PP&E>                                      33,869,783
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,010,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             149,004,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       40,709,109
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       247,119
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,383,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               149,004,827
<SALES>                                     44,268,292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,268,292
<CGS>                                       30,695,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,695,497
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,057,436
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             861,267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,670,570
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,471,096
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,199,474
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,199,474
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
#### WOODWARD VS. GRIFFITH.

Appeal from Denton county.

Trespass.---The common law rule “that every man must keep his domestic, animals within the limits of his own possessions, and if they stray upon the land of another, he is chargeable with a trespass” does not obtain in this state, such rule being inconsistent with the legislation of this state.

*Same*— Animals *Running at Large.-*— In this state the owner of such animals may permit them to run at large, except where prohibited from doing so by some special or local law, and if, while running at large, they are killed or injured, his right to recover damages is not affected by the fact that they were not upon hir own .premises at the time.

*Damages.*— One who constructs a fence upon his own land not in compliance with the statute, is guilty of negligence such as will make him liable in damages for injuries received by stock running at large by contact with such fence.

Opinion by

Willson, J.