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

Docket No. 41619

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

CHRISTOPHER D. ZENDEJAS,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Opinion No. 658

Filed: August 11, 2014

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Timothy L. Hansen , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction and executing unified sentence of ten years, with two years determinate

, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGree v y, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

C hristopher D. Zendejas ple d guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to

deliver . Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(a) . The district court sentenced Zendejas to a unified term of ten
years, with two years determinate, and retained jurisdiction

. At the review hearing, Zendejas

made an oral Idaho C riminal Rule 35 motion, requesting a reduction of the determinate portion
of his sentence. The district court relinquished jurisdiction and denied the Rule 35 motion.
Zendejas appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion by not reducing h is sentence
pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35 when it relinquished jurisdiction.2 Pursuant to Rule 35, a court may reduce a sentence within 120 days after the court
releases retained jurisdiction. A court’s decision not to reduce a sentence is reviewed fo r an abuse of discretion. In conducting our review, we consider the entire record and apply the same
reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde , 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct.
App. 1987); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P .2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App. 1984). Our
appellate standard of review and the factors to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness

of a sentence are well

- established. State v. Burdett , 134 Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Ct. App. 2000);

State v. Sanchez , 115 I daho 776, 769 P.2d 1148 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Reinke

, 103 Idaho 771,
653 P.2d 1183 (Ct. App. 1982); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1982).

W e find no abuse of discretion in the relinquishment of jurisdiction without modification
of the initial sentence. Accordingly, the order relinquishing jurisdiction and requiring execution
of Zendejas’s sentence is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin LOZANO-AVALOS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51035 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

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

Martin Lozano-Avalos, Pro Se

*466Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Martin Lozano-Avalos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Lozano-Avalos has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs 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. 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.

*

 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.
April 7 , 2016

Mr. Dean M. Drew

Partner

Drew & Drew LLP

159 Linwood Avenue

Buffalo

, NY 14209

Dear Mr. Drew :

We have received your March 28

, 2016

, email correspondence on behalf of Wings Flights of

Hope

, Inc. withdrawing its December 8

, 2015

, petition for an exempt ion from § 61.113(c) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

Your letter has been placed in the p ublic docket (No. FAA

- 2012

- 0516 ). No further action will

be taken on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

James M. Crotty

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Div ision
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 809 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 809

                   For the relief of Ibrahim Parlak.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2015

  Mr. Upton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Ibrahim Parlak.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR IBRAHIM PARLAK.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Ibrahim 
Parlak shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for 
adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Ibrahim Parlak enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Ibrahim 
Parlak shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Ibrahim Parlak, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of birth of 
Ibrahim Parlak under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of birth of 
Ibrahim Parlak under section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Ibrahim 
Parlak shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
IA

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 119

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit

campaign spending.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 14, 1998

Mr. DELAY introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to limit campaign spending.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with8 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica9 tion:
2

•HJ 119 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE —

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. To promote the fair and effective func3 tioning of the democratic process, Congress, with respect

4 to elections for Federal office, and States, for all other

5 elections, including initiatives and referenda, may adopt

6 reasonable regulations of funds expended, including con7 tributions, to influence the outcome of elections, provided

8 that such regulations do not impair the right of the public

9 to a full and free discussion of all issues and do not pre10 vent any candidate for elected office from amassing the

11 resources necessary for effective advocacy.

12 ‘‘SECTION 2. Such governments may reasonably de13 fined which expenditures are deemed to be for the purpose

14 of influencing elections, so long as such definition does not

15 interfere with the right of the people fully to debate issues.

16 ‘‘SECTION 3. No regulation adopted under this au17 thority may regulate the content of any expression or com18 munication.’’.

Æ
Order filed January 10 , 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00981

- CV

____________ IN RE SAEXPLORATION, INC., JEFF HASTINGS, AND BRENT WHITELEY , Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 215th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 01355



### ORDER

On October 26, 2012 , relator s filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this

c ourt. See Tex. Gov ’ t Code Ann. ' 22.221. Relator s asked this c ourt to order The
Honorable Steven Kirkland , Judge of the 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas, to set aside his order disqualifying Brent Whiteley entered in trial court
cause number 2012

- 01355 , styled CGGVeritas Land (U.S.), Inc. v. SAExploration,
Inc.

.On December 4, 2012, this court iss ued an opinion denying relators’ requested relief. On December 19, 2012, relators filed a motion for rehearing, which remains pending. Because the respondent ceased to hold the office of Judge
of the 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas, after the institution of this action, we are required to abate this mandamus proceeding to permit the respondent ’ s successor, the Honorable Elaine H. Palmer , to reconsider the decision regarding relators ’ request for relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b). Therefore, this mandamus proceeding is abated for a period of thirty days from the date of this order, at which time the new presiding judge of the 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas, shall advise the c ourt of the action taken on r elators ’ request. The

c ourt will then consider a motion to reinstate or dismiss this proceeding, as appropriate.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Selena PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50036

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

*297Janaki Gandhi, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Zandra Luz Lopez, Attorney, Sarah Rose Weinman, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc,, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *297*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Selena Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 100-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address her mitigating arguments and by failing to appreciate its discretion to vary from the Guidelines on policy grounds under *Kimbrough v. United States,*552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). Reviewing de novo, see *United States v. Hammons,*558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), we conclude that the district court did not err. The record reflects that the district court considered Perez’s mitigating arguments and departed downward in response. Moreover, the record shows that the district court understood its discretion to vary from the Guidelines on policy grounds but chose not to exercise that discretion. *See United States v. Henderson,*649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 11-8885.

#### Armstrong *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-rari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 278 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 278

To authorize testimony, production of documents, and representation of 
          Senate employee in State of Florida v. Kathleen Bush

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 1996

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize testimony, production of documents, and representation of 
          Senate employee in State of Florida v. Kathleen Bush

Whereas, in the case of State of Florida v. Kathleen Bush, Case No. 96-6912 
        CF10(A), pending in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida, 
        testimony and document production has been requested from Mary Chiles, 
        an employee on the staff of Senator Bob Graham;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to 
        any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or documents relating to 
        their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from 
        such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Mary Chiles, and any other employee from whom 
testimony may be required, are authorized to testify and to produce 
documents in the case of State of Florida v. Kathleen Bush, except 
concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Mary Chiles, and any other employee from whom testimony or document 
production may be required, in connection with State of Florida v. 
Kathleen Bush.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOSEPH FRANCESKI AND BERNADETTE FRANCESKI, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL FRANCESKI,

Petitioners

v.

LINDE CORPORATION AND RAIL

- TRAIL

COUNCIL OF NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, INC.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 13 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of September, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Attendee Report GoToWebinar

Webinar Name Webinar ID

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Dehumidifiers

220295592

Total Attended

15

Session Details

First Name Last Name Email Country Address City State Organization Zip Code

lacy aliff US 11552 prosperous dr odessa FL Dais Analytic 33556

Mizanur Chowdhury CA 178 Rexdale Blvd Toronto ON CSA Group M9W 1R3

Kevin Churchill US 3933 US Route 11 Cortland NY Intertek 13045

Rachel Cluett US 529 14th St NW Washington DC ACEEE 20010

Ashley Cocita US 8503 East Pleasant Valley Road Independence OH CSA Group 44131

lauren mattison US 100 5th Ave Waltham MA Cadmus 02451

Joanna Mauer US 529 14th St NW Suite 600 Washington DC Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project 20045

Sarah Medepalli US 1725 eye street, suite 1000 Washington DC ICF 20006

Renata Mortazavi CA 930 Carling Ave., Building 3,Ottawa, 

Ontario, Canada Ottawa ON NRCan Canada K1A 0Y3

Judd Smith US 8501 pleasant valley rd. independence OH 44131

matt snyder US 3933 us route 11 cortland NY Intertek 13045

Yoolanda Williams US AP2-121, Appliance Park Louisville KY GE Appliances 40225

linda wilson US 120 Broadway New York NY 10271

Ed Wuesthoff US 10001 Reunion Place San Antonio TX Friedrich Air Conditioning 

Company, LTD 78216

Daniel Young US 1610 Harrison Oakland CA 94612

General Information

June 13, 2014
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             SIEBEL SYSTEMS, INC.

           STATEMENTS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
               (In thousands, except per share data; unaudited)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                        Three Months Ended                   Nine Months Ended
                                                                           September 30                         September 30
                                                                       ---------------------                --------------------
                                                                         1997        1996                     1997        1996
                                                                       --------    ---------                --------    --------
<S>                                                                   <C>         <C>                      <C>         <C>  
Net income                                                             $  5,702    $  1,593                 $ 12,520    $  2,492
                                                                       ========    ========                 ========    ========

Weighted average number of shares outstanding
           Common stock                                                  34,457      31,582                   34,215      21,913
           Preferred stock, as if converted                                   -         334                        -       6,724
Number of common stock equivalents as a result of stock options
           outstanding using the treasury stock method                    6,245       8,066                    5,605       6,368
Number of common stock issued and stock options granted in                
           accordance with SAB No. 83                                         -           -                        -       3,915
                                                                       --------    --------                 --------    --------

           Shares used in net income per share computation               40,702      39,982                   39,820      38,920
                                                                       ========    ========                 ========    ========

           Net income per share                                        $   0.14    $   0.04                 $   0.31    $   0.06
                                                                       ========    ========                 ========    ========
</TABLE> 
 
Note:  All share and per share amounts for the periods ended September 30, 1996
       have been restated to reflect a two-for-one stock split (effected in the 
       form of a stock dividend) which was effective December 19, 1996.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00004**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 

### 00004\00004_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00004\00004_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00004\00004_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00004\00004_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00004\00004_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 00004\Certification Statement_00004.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 00004\Supplemental Documents\00004_WH Weatherspoon A5-2 Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00004\Supplemental Documents\00004_WH Weatherspoon A5-3 Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00004\Supplemental Documents\00004_WH Weatherspoon D3-1 Pond-1 Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00004\ICR Follow Up Emails\ICR Follow Up questions.docx Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 00004\ICR Follow Up Emails\ICR follow up.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 00004\00004_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 00004\00004_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
No. 11-1405.

#### Arlotta *v.*Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of Youngs.

Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.
#### Cesar Misael GIRAL-BENITEZ, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 17-60079 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 12, 2018

Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioner

Leslie McKay, Esq., Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Manuel A. Palau, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Virginia Lee Gordon, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cesar Misael Giral-Benitez petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to deny his motion to reopen. For the reasons that follow, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to exercise its regulatory authority to reopen the removal proceeding *sua sponte. See Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions,*866 F.3d 302, 306 & n.6 (5th Cir. 2017), *cert. denied,*No. 17-653, — U.S.-, — S.Ct. -, — L.Ed.2d -, 2018 WL 311388 (U.S. Jan. 8, 2018). We have jurisdiction to review the denial of a statutory motion to reopen based on equitable tolling. *See Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch,*831 F.3d 337, 343-44 (5th Cir. 2016). However, Giral-Benitez did not exhaust an argument for equitable tolling of the statutory deadline. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Giral-Benitez’s unexhausted equitable tolling argument. *See Lopez-Dubon v. Holder,*609 F.3d 642, 644 (5th Cir. 2010).

Giral-Benitez’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

*

 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.