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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42407

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CRYSTAL SPRING LEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 324

Filed: January 27, 2015

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Christopher S. Nye, District Judge. 

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

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Crystal Spring Lee pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-

2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Lee to a unified term of four years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two years. However, the district court retained jurisdiction and sent 

Lee to participate in the rider program. Thereafter, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and 

ordered execution of Lee’s original sentence. Lee filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district 

court denied. Lee 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 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 
2

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

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

record, including any new information submitted with Lee’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Lee’s Rule 35 

motion is affirmed.
# C_2022148EN.01004702.xml

| 4.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/47

---

Action brought on 8 March 2022 — RT France v Council

(Case T-125/22)

(2022/C 148/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RT France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Piwnica, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/351 of 1 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/351 of 1 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine;

| — | annul Council Regulation (EU) 2022/350 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) 2022/350 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs;

with all the legal consequences that entails.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the rights of the defence and the adversarial principle, enshrined in Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the rights of the defence and the adversarial principle, enshrined in Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the freedom to conduct a business protected by Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the freedom to conduct a business protected by Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of non-discrimination flowing from Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of non-discrimination flowing from Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---
EX-10.10





 Certain identified information has been excluded from this exhibit because it is both
not material and is the type that the registrant treats as private or confidential. Information that was omitted has been noted in this document with a placeholder identified by the mark “[***]”. 

Exhibit 10.10 
 AMENDMENT
#3 to the 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 

COLLABORATION AND LICENSE AGREEMENT 

This Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement (“Amendment”), effective March 13, 2017 (the
“Amendment #3 Effective Date”), is by and between Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., with headquarters at 7100 NW 62nd Avenue, PO Box 1014, Johnston, Iowa 50131-1014, USA (“Pioneer”), and
Caribou Biosciences, Inc., located at 2929 7th St., Suite 105, Berkeley, California 94710 (“Caribou Bio”) (Caribou Bio and Pioneer, each individually a “Party”, and together the “Parties”). 

WHEREAS, the Parties have signed an Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement dated July 13, 2015 (which as of
July 13, 2015, [***] as amended by Amendment #1 to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement, dated January 21, 2016 (“Amendment #1), and Amendment #2 to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement,
dated July 18, 2016. As used in this Amendment, “Agreement” refers to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement, as amended; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further amend the Agreement to provide an update to an Appendix of the Agreement; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained in this Amendment, and for good and valuable consideration, the
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	1.	 All capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



  

	2.	 Page 6 of Amendment #1 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached schedule setting forth
the patent family owned by The Regents of the University of California/University of Vienna/Emmanuelle Charpentier entitled “Methods and Compositions for RNA-Directed Target DNA Modification and for RNA-Directed Modulation of Transcription.” 


  

	3.	 All other terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. 



 

	4.	 This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, including facsimile or scanned PDF documents.
Each such counterpart, facsimile or scanned PDF document shall be deemed an original instrument, and all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same executed Agreement. 



  
 Page 1 of 2 













 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated
Collaboration and License Agreement to be executed by their respective authorized representatives. 
  

									
	Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.	  		  	Caribou Biosciences, Inc.
					
	By:	  	 /s/ Mathias L. Müller
	  		  	By:	  	 /s/ Rachel E. Haurwitz

	Name: Mathias L. Müller	  		  	Name: Rachel E. Haurwitz
	Title: Director, Business Development	  		  	Title: President and CEO
			
	Date: May 5, 2017	  		  	Date: May 9, 2017


  
 Page 2 of 2
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9067 

To establish an office within the Department of Commerce to coordinate 

all non-defense related deployment and activities related to blockchain 

technology within the Federal Government. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 31, 2020 

Mr. SOTO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To establish an office within the Department of Commerce 

to coordinate all non-defense related deployment and activities related to blockchain technology within the Federal Government. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Blockchain Technology 

5 Coordination Act of 2020’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9067 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL BLOCKCHAIN TECH2 NOLOGY COORDINATION OFFICE. 

3 There is established within the Department of Com4 merce a National Blockchain Technology Coordination Of5 fice (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Office’’) which shall 

6 be organized and led by a Director, who shall be appointed 

7 by the Secretary not later than 60 days after the date 

8 of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Bundesministerium 

fur Verkehr und 

digitale Infrastruktur 

Bundesministerium fur Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur • Postfach 20 0100, 53170 Bonn HAUSANSCHRIFT 

Robert-Schuman-Platz 1 

Mr. Paul Gretch 53175 Bonn 

Director Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation POSTANSCHRIFT 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Postfach 20 0100 

VVashington D.C. 20590 53170 Bonn 

U.S.A. TEL +49 (0)228 99-300-4533 

FAx +49 (0)228 99-300-1499 

Email: Paul.Gretch@dot.gov Ref-LF12@bmvi.bund.de 

www.bmvi.de 

Subject: Statement of Reciprocity 

Charter flights by ACM Air Charter Luftfahrtgesellschaft mbH 

Our ref.: LR13/61869.8/1 and 61867.3/1 

Date: Bonn, 24 October 2014 

Page 1 of 1 

The German air carrier „ACM Air Charter Luftfahrtgesellschaft 

mbH", Baden-Airport, Montreal Ave. D 415, 77836 Rheinmunster, 

has informed the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, that it intends to conduct international non-scheduled (charter) 

flights to/from the United States of America with the following aircrafts : 

• Bombardier Global Express BD700, registration mark D-AGJP and 

• Bombardier Global Express BD700, registration mark D-ARYR. 

In case of similar requests by U.S. air carriers to/from the Federal Republic of Germany, the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure herewith confirms that it will consider and approve, on the 

basis of reciprocity, the same number of seventh freedom passenger 

non-scheduled (charter) operations by such U.S. carriers, which are 

not covered by the EU-US Air Transport Agreement of 25/30 April 

2007, as amended by Protocol of 24 June 2010. This statement is valid 

unti123 Apri12015. 

Sincerely yours 

For the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure 

. ,Benj amin Albert 

Assistant Head of Division International Air Transport 

Zertifikat seit zoog 

audit berufundfamilie
No. 11-10803.

#### Najera *v.*Wyoming.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA


Iron Range Livestock Exchange, Inc.; Aitkin, Minnesota; 
Correction

    A notice of the posting of certain stockyards listing their 
facility number, name, and location was published in the Federal 
Register on February 7, 1997, (62 FR 5795). This notice is to correct 
the posting number assigned to Iron Range Livestock Exchange, Inc., to 
read MN-192.

    Done at Washington, D.C., this 4th day of March 1997.
Daniel L. Van Ackeren,
Director, Livestock Marketing Division, Packers and Stockyards 
Programs.
[FR Doc. 97-6097 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P
# C_2022424EN.01002301.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 July 2022 — Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire

(Case C-501/22)

(2022/C 424/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel)

Defendant: Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire

Question referred

Must Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (1) be interpreted as authorising the extension of inter-trade agreements which establish more stringent standards than those laid down in Union rules not only in the case of ‘production rules’, mentioned in point (b) of Article 164(4), but also in all of the cases mentioned in points (a) and (c) to (n) thereof, in relation to which Article 164 provides that the extension of an inter-trade agreement may be requested and, in particular, whether that Article 164 authorises, where EU rules lay down marketing rules for a given class of fruit or vegetables, the adoption of more stringent rules, in the form of an inter-trade agreement, and their extension to all operators?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Purnell Elliott WILLIAMS, also known as Pernell Elliott Williams, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50542 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 6, 2018

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

Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, David Matthew Cole Peterson, Esq., Trial Attorney, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

*423Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Purnell Elliott Williams appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for possessing a firearm following a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. In his sole appellate argument,. he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) because the Government failed to prove the requisite domestic relationship between him and the victim of his 2010 Texas assault. Although proof of a domestic relationship is necessary for the federal firearm conviction, the underlying misdemeanor offense need not have a domestic relationship as an element. *United States v. Hayes,*555 U.S. 415, 418, 421-29, 129 S.Ct. 1079, 172 L.Ed.2d 816 (2009). The record contains sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that Ronnessa Williams, the assault victim, was Williams’s wife at the time of the incident. *See United States v. Mitchell,*484 F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir. 2007); 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
I N TH E SUPREM E COUR T OF THE

STATE OF MONTANA

Cas e No

. DA 23

- 0575

RIKKI HELD; LANDER B., by and through his guardian Sara Busse; BADGE B., by and through his guardian Sara Busse; SARIEL SANDOVAL; KIAN T., by and through his guardian Todd Tanner;
GEORGIANNA FISCHER; KATHRYN GRACE GIBSON

- SNYDER; EVA L., by and through her guardian Mark Lighthiser; MIKA K., by and through his guardian Rachel Kantor; OLIVIA VESOVICH;

J EFFREY K., by and through his guardian Laura King; NATHANIEL K., by and through his guardian Laura King; CLAIRE VLASES; RUBY D., by and through her guardian Shane Doyle; LILIAN D., by and through her guardian Shane Doyle; TALEAH HERNÁNDEZ,

P laintiffs and Appellees

,

vs.

STATE OF MONTANA, GOVERNOR GREG GIANFORTE, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION,

and MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendants and Appellants

.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF

Austin Knudsen Jeremiah Langston

Aislinn Brown

David Dewhirst

Derek Oestreicher Timothy Longfield Melissa Hornbein

Barbara Chillcott

Western Environmental Law

Center 103 Reeder’s Alley Helena, MT 59601 01/10/2024

Case Number: DA 23-05752 Morgan Varty

Lee McKenna Attorneys General Office

215 North Sanders

P.O. Box 201401 Helena, MT 59620

- 1401 Lee.mckenna@mt.gov michael.russell@mt.gov thane.johnson@mt.gov

Phillip L. Gregory Gregory Law Group pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

Mark L. Stermitz

Selena Z. Sauer Crowley Fleck Attorneys PLLP ssauer@crowleyfleck.com mstermitz@crowleyfleck.com

Quentin M. Rhoades

RHOADES & ERICKSON PLLC 430 Ryman Street Missoula, Montana 59802 courtdocs@montanalawyer.com hornbein@westernlaw.org chillcott@westernlaw.org

Nathan Bellinger

Mathew dos Santos Andrea Rodgers

Our Children’s Trust

1216 Lincoln Street Eugene, OR 97401 nate@ourchildrenstrust.org andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org julia@ourchildrenstrust.org

Dustin Lefridge Roger Sullivan McGarvey Law

345 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 rsullivan@mcgarveylaw.com dleftridge@mcgarveylaw.com

Amici parties, having filed their Unopposed Application for Leave

to File Friend of the Court Brief, and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is GRANTED.

Amicus Brief shall be due on or before February 13, 2024.

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW.

Electronically signed by:
Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 10 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 977 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 977

To require the Corps of Engineers to notify affected communities before 
    releasing water contaminated with cyanobacteria from flood risk 
              management projects, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2019

   Mr. Mast introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Corps of Engineers to notify affected communities before 
    releasing water contaminated with cyanobacteria from flood risk 
              management projects, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Toxic Health Threat Warning Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. RELEASES OF WATER CONTAMINATED WITH CYANOBACTERIA.

    (a) Determination.--Before releasing water from a flood risk 
management project, the Secretary shall determine whether the water is 
contaminated with cyanobacteria, based on tests conducted by the 
Secretary, another Federal agency, or the State in which the flood risk 
management project is located.
    (b) Notification.--If the Secretary determines under subsection (a) 
that water to be released from a flood risk management project is 
contaminated with cyanobacteria, the Secretary shall notify the public 
and affected governments of the contamination and planned release, and 
any potential effects on human health, before releasing the water.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Affected government.--The term ``affected government'' 
        means a State, local, or Tribal government with jurisdiction 
        over an area that will be affected by a release of water from a 
        flood risk management project.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-10993, 333-100186, 333-106054 and 333-106080 of PNM Resources, Inc. on Form
S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-03303, 333-03289, 333-61598, 333-76316,
333-76288, 333-88372 and 333-100184 of PNM Resources, Inc. on Form S-8 of our
reports dated March 8, 2004 (which express an unqualified opinion and include
explanatory paragraphs referring to the adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations,"
effective January 1, 2003 and the change in actuarial valuation measurement date
for the pension plan and other post-retirement benefits from September 30 to
December 31), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PNM Resources,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Omaha, Nebraska
March 10, 2004
No. 11-11046.

#### Myles *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.
NO. 07-07-0293-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	OCTOBER 23, 2007

	______________________________

	JEFFREY DAVID BAXTER, APPELLANT

	V.

	SHANNON KATHLEEN BAXTER, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NUMBER ONE OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY;

	NO. 05-2558-FC1; HONORABLE SUZANNE BROOKS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pending before this Court is Jeffrey David Baxter’s Amended Motion to Dismiss this appeal.  The certificate of conference reflects that Shannon Kathleen Baxter is not opposed to the motion being granted.  Without passing on the merits of the appeal, Jeffrey David Baxter’s motion is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).  Having dismissed the appeal at Mr. Baxter’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice

	at trial, otherwise they are waived).

	Accordingly, we overrule the issue and affirm the judgment.

							Brian Quinn 

						          Chief Justice

Do not publish.