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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41373

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

NICHOLAS DUDLEY, aka NICK 

DUDLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 571

Filed: June 18, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Canyon County. Hon. Thomas J. Ryan, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Nicholas Dudley was convicted of felony domestic battery causing traumatic injury, I.C. 

§§ 18-903, 18-918(2). The district court sentenced Dudley to a unified term of five years with a 

minimum period of confinement of two years and retained jurisdiction. Prior to Dudley’s 

completion of the retained jurisdiction period, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and 

ordered execution of Dudley’s sentence. Dudley filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which 

the district court denied. Dudley appeals.

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 
2

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). In conducting our 

review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we apply the same criteria used for 

determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 

P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of 

the record, including any new information submitted with Dudley’s Rule 35 motion, we 

conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying 

Dudley’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
 CERTIFICATION OF RICHARD H. BACHMANN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF DEP HOLDINGS, LLC, THE GENERAL PARTNER OF
DUNCAN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.
 
  
 (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.
 /s/ Richard H. BachmannName:
    Richard H. BachmannTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer of DEP Holdings, LLC

on behalf of Duncan Energy Partners L.P.
#### Rodrigue Boundji EFALEMA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73918

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed June 30, 2017

Rajan Olarita Dhungana, Esquire, Attorney, Sahara Legal Group, Reno, NV, for Petitioner

Rodrigue Boundji Efalema, Pro Se

Victoria M. Braga, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rodrigue Boundji Efalema, native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an- immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies as to the circumstances of Efalema’s father’s disappearance and whether he remained missing, details of the alleged attack against Efale-ma, and when Efalema believed his father was in danger. *See id.*at 1046-47 (although inconsistencies no longer need to “go to the heart” of the claim under the REAL *883ID Act, where an inconsistency does go to the heart of the claim, “it doubtless is of great weight”). Efalema’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Efalema’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Efalema’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Efalema does not point to any evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to the Democratic Republic of Congo. *See id.*at 1156-57.

Efalema’s motion to adopt the opening brief (Docket Entry No. 28) is granted.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# EUR-Lex - 32001R2499 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R2499

**Council Regulation (EC) No 2499/2001 of 19 December 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous common customs tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products **

*
Official Journal L 340 , 21/12/2001 P. 0001 - 0055 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 2499/2001

of 19 December 2001

amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous common customs tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 26 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) It is in the interest of the Community to suspend totally or partially the autonomous common customs tariff duties for a number of new products not listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96(1).

(2) A number of products which are referred to in the said Regulation should be withdrawn from the list in the Annex because it is no longer in the Community's interest to maintain suspension of autonomous common customs tariff duties or because the description needs to be altered in order to take account of technical product developments and economic trends on the market.

(3) Accordingly, products whose description needs to be altered should be regarded as new products.

(4) Having regard to the economic importance of this Regulation, it is necessary to invoke the ground of urgency provided for in point I(3) of the Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community on the role of national parliaments in the European Union.

(5) For ease of comprehension, in view of the large number of amendments coming into force on 1 January 2002, the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 should be replaced by a completely new version,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 is amended as follows:

The Annex shall be replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply with effect from 1 January 2002.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2001.

For the Council

The President

A. Neyts-Uyttebroeck

(1) OJ L 158, 29.6.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1159/2001 (OJ L 169, 23.6.2001, p. 1).

ANNEX

>TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33176]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Vermont Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that briefing and planning 
meetings of the Vermont Advisory Committee to the Commission will 
convene at 10 a.m. on Monday, January 3, 2011, at the State House, Room 
11, 115 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05633. The purpose of the 
briefing meeting is for the committee to hear presentations from public 
officials and community groups on the status of recommendations made by 
the Advisory Committee in its August 2009 racial profiling report. 
After the briefing meeting, the Committee will hold its planning 
meeting to plan future activities.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by February 3, 2011. 
The address is the Eastern Regional Office, 624 9th Street, NW., Suite 
740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or 
who desire additional information should contact the Eastern Regional 
Office at 202-376-7533 or by e-mail to: ero@usccr.gov.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meetings and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meetings.
    Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and 
reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, 
both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of 
this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the 
above e-mail or street address.
    The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC on December 29, 2010.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010-33176 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
#### INSTRADENT USA, INC., JJGC Industria e Comercio de Materiais Dentarios S/A, Appellants v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee Nobel Biocare Services AG, Nobel Biocare USA, LLC, Intervenors

2016-2336

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 19, 2017

Nicola Anthony Pisano, Foley & Lardner LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for appellants. Aso represented by Jose L. Pati-no.

*909Megan Michele Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Wayne W. Herrington, Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Dominic L. Bianchi.

Sheila N. Swaroop, Knobbe, Martens, Olson *&*Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for intervenors. Also represented by John B. Sganga, Jr„ Baraa Kahf, Sean Murray.

(Prost, Chief Judge, O’Malley and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02445**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 02445\02445_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02445\02445_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 02445\02445_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 02445\02445_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02445\02445_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02445\02445_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02445\02445_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02445\02445_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02445\02445_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02445\02445_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02445\02445_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

02445\Certification Statement Plant ID 02445.pdf Plant certification statement x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_2009_Neal_South.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_504MISCBWB-133 Model (1).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_Dewatering Bin Study Final confidential.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_N4 Ash System and Ash Water Pond Drawing.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_N4 Bottom Ash Comparison Study 082610.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_NS LANDFILL-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_NS Water Balance Intermittent Flow Key 7.22.2010.docx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02445\Supporting Documents\02445_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

.
# j ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

PR 07-0011

IN THE MATTER OF CALLING A RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTIVE SERVICE ORDER

Honorable Elizabeth A. Best, Judge of the District Court for the Eighth Judicial Districtofthe StateofMontana,hasrequestedtheassistanceofretiredDistrictJudgeJames A. Manley to assumejurisdiction ofEighth Judicial District Court Cause No. DC-2024-6, State v. Ryerson. Judge Manley has retired under the provisions ofthe Montana Judges' Retirement System and, being subject to call for duty pursuant to § 19-5-103(a) and (b), MCA, has advised that he is agreeable to assisting the Eighth Judicial District Court with the above-listed matter. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Honorable James A. Manley, retired District Judge, is hereby called to active service in the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District of the State of Montana, to
assume judicial authority of Cause No. DC-2024-6, State v. Ryerson, and is hereby authorized to proceed with any and all necessary hearings, opinions, and orders, including final resolution ofsaid matter. 2. For all active service, Judge Manley shall be paid the salaiy compensation to which he is entitled by § 19-5-103(2)(b), MCA, and actual expenses, if any, shall be reimbursed. 3. A copy ofthis Order shall be filed with the Clerk ofCourt for Cascade County, with the request that this Order be sent to all counsel ofrecord in the above-listed matter. 

# FILED AUG 

## 26 2024
Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana

08/26/2024

Case Number: PR 07-00114. A copy of this Order shall also be furnished to Honorable Elizabeth A. Best,

Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe, Honorable James A. Manley, and to Cathy Pennie, Office of the Supreme Court Administrator. The ChiefJustice enters this Order pursuant to Article VII, Section 6(3) ofthe 1972 Montana Constitution, and statutes enacted in conformity therewith and in implementation thereof. Y\'' DATED this

-

C__

### 6 day ofAugust, 2024. 

# ,,,: ,„\?,
ChiefJustice

2
#### Harley David CROSBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; South Carolina Highway Patrol; James C. Filyaw, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1236

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Harley David Crosby, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Thomas Dorsel, Sandra J. Senn, SENN LEGAL, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harley David Crosby appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and *784denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claim and remanding the remaining claims to the state court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Crosby v. South Carolina Dep’t of Pub. Safety,*2:15-cv-01455-RMG, 2017 WL 398352 (D.S.C. Jan. 30, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 35.1

                          SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Bank of Scotland plc, as servicer
(the "Servicer") pursuant to the servicing agreement among Halifax plc, as
servicer and seller, Permanent Mortgages Trustee Limited, as mortgages trustee
(the "Mortgages Trustee"), Permanent Funding (No. 1) Limited ("Funding 1"),
Permanent Funding (No. 2) Limited ("Funding 2") and The Bank of New York, as
security trustee (the "Security Trustee"), dated October 17, 2006 (the "
Servicing Agreement"); the amended and restated servicing agreement among the
Servicer, Bank of Scotland plc, as seller, the Mortgages Trustee, Funding 1,
Funding 2 and the Security Trustee, dated November 21, 2007 (the "Amended and
Restated Servicing Agreement"); the cash management agreement among Halifax plc,
as cash manager and seller, the Mortgages Trustee, Funding 1, Funding 2 and the
Security Trustee, dated October 17, 2006 (the " Cash Management Agreement"); the
amended and restated cash management agreement among Bank of Scotland plc, as
cash manager and seller, the Mortgages Trustee, Funding 1, Funding 2 and the
Security Trustee, dated November 21, 2007 (the "Amended and Restated Cash
Management Agreement"); the master issuer cash management agreement among
Permanent Master Issuer plc, Halifax plc, as master issuer cash manager, and the
Security Trustee, dated October 17, 2006 (the " Master Issuer Cash Management
Agreement"); and the amended and restated master issuer cash management
agreement among Permanent Master Issuer plc, Bank of Scotland plc, as master
issuer cash manager, and the Security Trustee, dated November 21, 2007 (the
"Amended and Restated Master Issuer Cash Management Agreement," and together
with the Serving Agreement, the Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement, the
Cash Management Agreement and the Amended and Restated Cash Management
Agreement, the "Servicing Agreements"), certifies that:

1.   Bank of Scotland plc is the Servicer under the Servicing Agreements.

2.   The undersigned is duly authorised as required pursuant to the Servicing
     Agreements to execute and deliver this certificate to Permanent Master
     Issuer plc.

3.   A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January
     1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 and its performance under the aforementioned
     Servicing Agreements has been made under my supervision.

4.   Based on such review, to the best of my knowledge, the Servicer has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreements throughout
     the period from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 in all material
     respects.

Capitalised terms used but not defined in this Servicer Compliance Statement
have their respective meanings set forth in the Servicing Agreements, unless the
context requires otherwise or unless otherwise defined in this Statement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance
Statement this 19th day of March, 2008.

By:       __/s/ Dan Watkins_______
Name:     Dan Watkins
Title:    Chief Executive, Retail
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 09/26 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Sep 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
#### POLO GEAR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, INC., Pologear LLC, Appellants v. PRL USA HOLDINGS, INC., Appellee

2016-2478

2016-2568

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 17, 2017

Robert Allen Rowan, Nixon & Vande-rhye P.C., Arlington, VA, argued for appellants. Also represented by Sheryl De Luca.

Daniel I. Schloss, Greenberg Traurig LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee.

(Lourie, Moore, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### Dennis DETERS, Petitioner v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent

No. 16-3727

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 19, 2017

Filed: May 24, 2017

Dennis Deters, Pro Se

Reggie Govan, Jerome M. Mellody, Amanda Bruchs Sheridan, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Chief Counsel for Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota resident Dennis Deters petitions this Court for review after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) denied him a medical certificate needed to reestablish his private pilot’s license. He has also filed a motion to supplement the record.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, and we conclude that the FAA’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or without support in the law. See Reder v. Adm’r of FAA, 116 F.3d 1261, 1263 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). We deny the petition for review and deny as moot Deters’s motion to supplement the record.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-11203

DARRELL LEE ACLESE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DALLAS COUNTY JAIL, Et Al, Defendants

JIM BOWLES, Sheriff; STEVE ACKERMAN, Captain, Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

February 13, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We are persuaded that there are no genuine issues of material

fact for trial. S ee Farmer v. Brennan ,

___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct.

1977; Hare v. City of Corinth , 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc). We reverse the order denying summary judgment and enter

judgment in favor of Sheriff Jim Bowles and Captain Ackerman.2

REVERSED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 2, 2019

s0325 

# Order

Clerk April 2, 2019

158411

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158411

COA: 343839

Kent CC: 14

- 000789

- FC

DANYELL DARSHIEK THOMAS

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Augu st 9 , 2018 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).