alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State v. ILL.

Criminal Law: appeal from justice’s court : power of defendant to waive jury trial. Where one has been tried and convicted upon an information in a justice’s court, and he appeals to the district court, he has the power to waive trial by jury in the appellate court, and to submit to a trial by the court; and where he does so, and is so tried, and is found guilty, and judgment is rendered against him, he cannot afterwards insist that the court had no right to try him without a jury. (State *v. Carman,*63 Iowa, 130, and *State v. Larrigan,*66 Iowa, 426, in which cases the trials were on *indictments,*distinguished.)

*Appeal from Polk District Court.*— Hon. Josiah Given, Judge.

Filed, May 14, 1888.

The defendant was tried by a j ury in a justice’s court on an information which charged him with having owned and kept intoxicating liquors, with intent to sell the same contrary to law. He was convicted and adjudged to pay a fine. Prom that judgment he appealed. In the district court he consented to a trial without a jury, and was again convicted ; and, from the judgment rendered, appeals to this court.

*Baylies &*Baylies, for appellant.

*A. J.*Baker, Attorney General, for the State.

Robinson, J.

The only question presented by this appeal is the power of the defendant to waive his right to a trial by jury in the district court. It is contended by appellant that such right did not exist, and that this case falls within the rule announced in *State v.*Carman, 63 Iowa, 130, and *State v.*Larrigan, 66 Iowa, 426. In each of those cases the defendant was tried on an indictment, and it was held that section 4350 of the Code was *442an imperative provision, which excluded the jurisdiction bf the court, without a jury, to try an issue of fact presented by indictment. In this case, defendant was accused, by information, of an offense of which the district court had only appellate jurisdiction. Section 4702 of the Code provides that a casé of this kind “ shall stand for trial anew in the district court in the same manner as it should have been tried before the justice.” It should have been tried before the justice in one of two modes : either by the court or by a jury. The provisions of the Code which apply in this case are as follows: “Sec. 4669. Upon a plea other than a plea of guilty, if the defendant do not demand a trial by jury, the justice must proceed to try the issue, unless a change of venue be applied for by defendant.” “Sec. 4672. Before the justice has heard any testimony upon the trial, the defendant may demand a trial by jury.” It will be noticed that the proper manner of trying a case of this kind in justice’s court is to try it to the justice, unless a jury is demanded by defendant. In other words, if he fail to demand a jury, he waives the right to be tried by one. This being the case in justice’s court, and the cause being triable in the same mode or manner in the district court, the defendant had the power tp consent to a trial to the court. He was not denied the right to a trial by jury, and cannot now be heard to complain that he was not so tried.

Affirmed.
15457

#### THOMPSON v. PATTERSON, SUPERVISOR *IN RE:*STATE v. THOMPSON

(22 S. E. (2d), 590)

*224
      *Mr. J. Alex*Neely, of Anderson, Counsel for Appellant,

*225
      *Mr. Rufus Pant,*Solicitor, of Anderson,'Counsel for the State, Respondent,

October 31, 1942.

PER CURIAM:

Being satisfied that the order of Honorable G. B. Greene, Circuit Judge, properly decided the only issue involved, we hereby direct that his order be published as the opinion of this Court.

The exceptions are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 22-0286

__________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DARRIN JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

__________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 10, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 12 2022

07/12/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0286
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gonzalo HERNANDEZ-ALAMILLA, also known as Gonzalo Hernandez, also known as Gonzalo Bryan Hernandez, also known as Gonzalo Alamilla, also known as Gonzalo Almailla-Hernandez, also known as Chaka, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50988 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 17, 2017

*803Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gonzalo Hernandez-Alamilla, Pro Se

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Gonzalo Hernandez-Alamilla has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez-Alamilla has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

Nevertheless, counsel asserts that there is a clerical error in the written judgment because it does not include “Aiding and Abetting” in the description of the nature of the offense, nor does it include “18 U.S.C. § 2” as a violated statutory provision. Even without the inclusion of “Aiding and Abetting,” the judgment correctly describes the nature of the offense, and thus this omission need not be corrected. *See United States v. Rabhan,*540 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2008). However, it will not prejudice the Government if the district court corrects the judgment on remand to include “18 U.S.C. § 2” in the list of violated provisions. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. The case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to add “18 U.S.C. § 2” to the list of violated statutory provisions. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P.36.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
From: Hodanbosi, Bob 

Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:41 AM

To: Douglas Aburano

Cc: Dines, Jennifer

Subject: Infrastructure SIPs - PM2.5 Concentrations

Doug,  

We have reviewed all Ohio historical ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 and we have confirmed that

observed 24‐hour PM2.5 concentrations have always been below 140 ug/m3 at all locations in Ohio.

Consistent with EPA's guidance, "Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)

for the 2005 24‐Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)" September

25, 2009,  areas that have not observed PM2.5 concentrations above EPA's intended significant harm

level may opt to address emergency episode requirements by attesting that concentrations had always

been below 140 ug/m3.  As a result, Ohio satisfies requirements for emergency episode planning even

without contingency plan requirements specifically tailored to PM2.5.

Bob Hodanbosi
CMP-2 

Revised: May 16, 2005

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Supplemental Application Form 

Conservation Management Practices: FIELD AND ROW CROPS 

Farm Name: CMP Plan Years: to 

Maximum Crop Acreage: 

Fallow Acreage Last Planted in Field/Row Crops: 

Land 

Preparation/ 

Cultivation 

Select at least one of the following CMPs. 

Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs. 

 Bed/row size or spacing, ac Equipmt change/tech. imprvmnts, ac 

 Cessation of activities, ac Multiple CMPs in another category 

 Chemigation/fertigation, ac Mulching, ac 

 Combined operations, ac Night farming, ac 

 Conservation irrigation, ac Non-tillage/chemical tillage, ac 

 Conservation tillage, ac Transplanting, ac 

 Cross wind stripcropping, ac Other (special approval reqd.), ac 

Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: 

 

 

 

Harvest 

Select at least one of the following CMPs. 

Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs. 

 Combined operations, ac Pre-harvest soil preparation, ac 

 Equipment change/tech. improvements, ac Shed packing, ac 

 Hand harvesting, ac Shuttle system, ac 

 Multiple CMPs in another category Other (special approval reqd), ac 

 Night harvesting, ac 

Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: 

 

 

 

Other 

Select at least one of the following CMPs. 

Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs. 

 Cover crops, ac Soil moisture management, ac 

 Fallowing land, ac Surface roughening, ac 

 Multiple CMPs in another category Time of disturbance/planting, ac 

 Non-tillage/chemical tillage, ac Wind barrier, ac 

 Organic practices, ac Other (special approval reqd), ac 

Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: 

 

 

 

CMP

2
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Executive Officer,

As Adopted
Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, Gerald L. Storch, Chief Executive Officer of Toys R Us, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Gerald L. StorchGerald L. StorchChairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


September 12, 2006
Exhibit 12.3

CERTIFICATION    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of AerCap Holdings N.V. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Form-20-F") of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 1, 2009

By:Klaus Heinemann Chief Executive OfficerDate: April 1, 2009

By:Keith Helming Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50773 Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: WCL, INC.,

Debtor.

HUDSPETH COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellant,

versus

WCL, INC., Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

EP-94-CV-382

May 29, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Hudsp eth County Appraisal District appeals to this court the district court’s order

dismissing, and declining to reconsider, its appeal of the bankruptcy court’s rejection of its

claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of WCL, Inc. Having reviewed the pertinent parts of the

record and briefs of counsel, and finding neither error nor abuse of discretion, on the basis

of the facts as found, authorities cited, and scholarly analysis of the district court in its2

comprehensive and thorough Order Dismissing Appeals, signed and entered September 19,

1995, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 786 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 786

   To designate the United States Post Office building located at 24 
Corliss Street, Providence, Rhode Island, as the ``Harry Kizirian Post 
               Office Building'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 10 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

 Mr. Chafee (for himself and Mr. Pell) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the United States Post Office building located at 24 
Corliss Street, Providence, Rhode Island, as the ``Harry Kizirian Post 
               Office Building'', and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HARRY KIZIRIAN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    The United States Post Office building located at 24 Corliss 
Street, Providence, Rhode Island, shall be known and designated as the 
``Harry Kizirian Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, record, or other 
paper of the United States to the United States Post Office building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Harry Kizirian Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 791

To provide that certain civil defense employees and employees of the Federal

Emergency Management Agency may be eligible for certain public safety

officers death benefits, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 11 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To provide that certain civil defense employees and employees

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency may be

eligible for certain public safety officers death benefits,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS DEATH BENEFITS

4 FOR CIVIL DEFENSE EMPLOYEES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1204(7) of the Omnibus

6 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.

7 3796b(7)) is amended by striking ‘‘or rescue squad or am8 bulance crew’’ and inserting ‘‘rescue squad or ambulance
2

•S 791 IS

1 crew, or an employee of the Federal Emergency Manage2 ment Agency and employees of State and local emergency

3 management and civil defense agencies.’’.

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

5 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of enactment

6 of this Act and shall apply only to employees of the Fed7 eral Emergency Management Agency and employees of

8 State and local emergency management and civil defense

9 agencies who are injured or die in the line of duty on or

10 after such date.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John P. DEWEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30113

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Great Falls), Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

John P, Dewey appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Dewey contends that the district court erred by denying his motion without first appointing counsel to represent him. This claim fails because Dewey had no constitutional right to counsel when bringing his section 3582 motion. *See United States v. Townsend,*98 F.3d 510, 512-13 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, because Dewey was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the district court correctly determined that he is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); *United States v. Wesson,*583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# EUR-Lex - 32001R0881 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R0881

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 881/2001 of 3 May 2001 fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on malt **

*
Official Journal L 123 , 04/05/2001 P. 0018 - 0019 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 881/2001

of 3 May 2001

fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on malt

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 13(8),

Whereas:

(1) Article 13(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 provides that the export refund applicable to cereals on the day on which application for an export licence is made, adjusted for the threshold price in force during the month of exportation, must be applied on request to exports to be effected during the period of validity of the export licence. In this case, a corrective amount may be applied to the refund.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 602/2001(4), allows for the fixing of a corrective amount for the malt referred to in Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92. That corrective amount must be calculated taking account of the factors referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.

(3) It follows from applying the provisions set out above that the corrective amount must be as set out in the Annex hereto.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The corrective amount referred to in Article 13(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 which is applicable to export refunds fixed in advance in respect of malt shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 May 2001.

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

Done at Brussels, 3 May 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.

(4) OJ L 89, 29.3.2001, p. 16.

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 3 May 2001 fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on malt

NB:

The product codes and the "A" series destination codes are set out in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (OJ L 366, 24.12.1987, p. 1) as amended.

The numeric destination codes are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2543/1999 (OJ L 307, 2.12.1999, p. 46).

>TABLE>

>TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7916
CHRISTOPHER COLYN GUTKNECHT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-02-554) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Colyn Gutknecht, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Ransom Franklin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Colyn Gutknecht seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gutknecht has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01- 7662). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED