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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41450

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KENNETH DEWAIN McCURDY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 566

Filed: June 16, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Patrick H. Owen, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of one year, for felony driving under the 

influence, affirmed.

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

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Kenneth Dewain McCurdy pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-

8004, 18-8005(6). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The 

district court sentenced McCurdy to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of one year. McCurdy appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, McCurdy’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
No. 12-5931.

#### Bargo *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

O ctober 12, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00498

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF B.M.G.

,

From the 386th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015JUV00638

Honorable Laura Parker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On September 23, 2016, after the notice of appeal filing fees remained unpaid, we

ordered a ppellant B.M.G. to show cause in writing by October 3, 2016, that the filing fees have

been paid. The fees were paid on October 7, 2016; our September 23, 2016 order is satisfied.

We reinstate the appellate timetable. Appellant’s brief is due on November 2 , 201 6

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of October, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12251-12252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6455]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Geosciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in the Geosciences (1756).
    Date and time: March 31-April 4, 1997, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), 1850 
Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 and the University Corporation 
for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), 330 Mitchell Lane, Boulder, CO 
80301.
    Type of meeting: Closed.
    Contact person: Dr. Clifford Jacobs, Section Head for the UCAR 
and Lower Atmospheric Facility Oversight Section, Division of 
Atmospheric Sciences, Room 775, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone number is (703) 306-
1521.

[[Page 12252]]

    Purpose of meeting: Site visit and review of UCAR/NCAR.
    Agenda: to review and evaluate UCAR management of NCAR.
    Reason for closing: The materials being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data; and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters 
are exempted under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government 
in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: March 10, 1997.
Linda Allen-Benton,
Deputy Director, Division of Human Resource Management, Acting 
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-6455 Filed 3-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Multi-Color Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dawn H. Bertsche, Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: February 13, 2004



By:

/s/ Dawn H. BertscheDawn H. BertscheVice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer
/**
* DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE.
* See the following change record for more information,
* https://www.drupal.org/node/2815083
* @preserve
**/
if (window.jQuery) {
  jQuery.noConflict();
}
document.documentElement.className += ' js';
(function (Drupal, drupalSettings) {
  var domReady = function domReady(callback) {
    var listener = function listener() {
      callback();
      document.removeEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', listener);
    };
    if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {
      setTimeout(callback, 0);
    } else {
      document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', listener);
    }
  };
  domReady(function () {
    Drupal.attachBehaviors(document, drupalSettings);
  });
})(Drupal, window.drupalSettings);
## NO. 12

- 15

- 00192

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST
OF D. D., A CHILD §
§
§ APPEAL FROM THE 392N D

JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT
HENDERSON COUNTY, TE XAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court rendered a judgment terminating the parent

- child relationship between
A.J. and D.D. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 161.001(b)(1) (West Supp. 2016). We previously abated this appeal with ins tructions for the trial court to give proper notification pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and determine whether D.D. is an Indian child as defined by
the ICWA. See In re D.D. , 12

- 15

- 00192

- CV, 2016 WL 1082477, at *8 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Feb.
29 , 2016, no pet.). This proceeding is now reinstated. In the memorandum opinion and abatement order, we stated that if the trial court
determined that D.D. is not an Indian child, we would issue a judgment affirming the trial court’s termination judgment. On September 8, 2016, the trial court found that proper notice was sent to the tribes identified by A.J. and D.D.’s father, D.C.D., and evidence showed that the child, D.D., is not eligible for membership in these tribes. Thus, the trial court found that D.D. is not an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA. See 25 U.S.C.A. § 1903(4) (West law through
P ub. L . No. 114

- 244 ). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
J AMES T. W ORTHEN Chief Justice
Opinion delivered November 9, 2016

. Pane l consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 9 , 2016

NO. 12

- 15

- 00192

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D. D ., A CHILD

Appeal from the 392nd District Court of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2014B

- 0084) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

James T. Worthen , Chief Justice

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
No. 12-5176.

#### Flowers *v.*Small, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
III 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 126 

Commemorating the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the Sisters of the 

Sacred Hearts in Hawai‘i. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2009 

Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. AKAKA, and Mr. KERRY) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the 

Sisters of the Sacred Hearts in Hawai‘i. 

Whereas the Sisters of the Sacred Hearts, also known as the 

Sisters of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of 

Jesus and Mary, in 2009 are celebrating the 150th anniversary of their arrival in Hawai‘i on May 4, 1859, to 

provide Catholic education to the children of Hawai‘i; 

Whereas, during the past 150 years, through the devotion 

and dedication of the Sisters of the Sacred Hearts, thousands of youth in Hawai‘i, California, Massachusetts, and 

New Jersey have received the benefit of a well-rounded 

education based on Christian principles and moral living 

at the following educational institutions: Sacred Hearts 

Convent at Fort Street, Honolulu; Sacred Hearts Academy, Kaimuki, Honolulu; St. Anthony Home, Kalihi, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 126 ATS 

Honolulu; Sacred Hearts Convent, Nuuanu, Honolulu; 

St. Theresa School, Honolulu; Our Lady of Peace School, 

Honolulu; Immaculate Conception School, Lihue, Kauai; 

St. Patrick School, Kaimuki, Honolulu; Maria Regina 

School, Gardena, California; Bishop Amat High School, 

West Covina, California; Sacred Hearts Academy, 

Fairhaven, Massachusetts; St. Joseph School, Fairhaven, 

Massachusetts; Sacred Hearts School, Fairhaven, Massachusetts; and St. Andrew School, Avenel, New Jersey; 

Whereas, during the past 101 years, the Sisters of the Sacred 

Hearts have served communities in Fairhaven, Fall 

River, and Mt. Rainier, Massachusetts, and in Avenel, 

New Jersey, and continue to serve communities in 

Fairhaven, Massachusetts; 

Whereas, during the past 50 years, the Sisters of the Sacred 

Hearts have served communities in Gardena, West Covina, and San Bernardino, California, and in Artesia, 

New Mexico, and continue to serve communities in 

Artesia, New Mexico; and 

Whereas the people of the United States wish to convey their 

sincerest appreciation to the Sisters of the Sacred Hearts 

for their service and devotion: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

(1) recognizes the 150th 2 anniversary of the ar3 rival of the Sisters of the Sacred Hearts in Hawai‘i; 

4 and 

5 (2) honors and praises the Sisters of the Sacred 

6 Hearts Pacific Province for their good works in the 

7 education of the youth of the United States and in 

8 service to the people of Hawai‘i, California, MassaVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:39 May 04, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR126.ATS SR126

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 126 ATS 

1 chusetts, New Jersey, and New Mexico, and for the 

2 Sisters’ pursuit of educational, social, and economic 

3 equality of all persons. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
PO BOX 1348 , HOO PA CA 95546 e WWW.HOOPA-NSN .GOV

July 7, 2014

Mr. Fred Leutner Office of Science & Technology (Mail Code 4305T) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20460 E-mail Leutner.Fred @ epa.gov
RE: Potential Reinterpretation ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA) Provisions regarding Treatment in a Similar Manner to States (TAS)
Dear Mr. Leutner: It has come to the Hoopa Valley Tribe 's attention that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a Reinterpretation ofthe rules governing the burden placed on Tribes applying for TAS under the CWA for Section 303(c) , Water Quality Standards. Currently, Tribes must demonstrate their own inherent regulatory authority, which is challenging and resource intensive. Thi s burden alone has cost Tribes both time and funds to meet this requirement. The potential reinterpretation which would eliminate the "Montana Test" by stating that CW A Section 518 i s a delegation by Congress to eligible Tribes to administer CW A regulatory programs over their entire reservations regardless ofland ownership will allow Tribes to exerci se their sovereignty by our ability and willingness to accept thi s delegation. In 1990, the

### Hoop**~** V

### all~y Tribe applied to EPA fQr TAS under the CWA. lh 2001 Hoopa Tribe was appro ved to administer CWA Section 303 water quality standards program. It has taken us 11 year,s and o ver forty thou sand dollars in legal f ees to recei ve EPA approved water quality s tandards for our reserva tion waters.

DAN I E L L E VI G IL - MA S T E N , C HAI R P E R SO N e HUPAC H AIR@ H O OPA - N S N
. G O V e P H 5 30 - 62 5 - 4 2 1 I e FX 5 30- 6 2 5 - 459 4The Hoopa Tribe believes EPA ' s reinterpretation will clarify and strengthen the inherent regulatory authority of sovereign tribes to implement EPA statutes within reservations regardless of land ownership. Reinterpretation would validate the legal basis for tribal assertion of regulatoryjurisdiction under the CW A and decrease the administrative burden of case-by-case assessments oftribal authority. As Tribal Chairwoman ofthe Hoopa Valley Tribe, I support EPA's efforts to reinterpret provisions of the CW A regarding the TAS process. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this potential rule change. Respectfully,

# ~~:::**man** Hoopa Valley Tribe PO Box 1038 Hoopa, CA 95546 (530) 625-4211
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51140-51141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20223]

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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meetings

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, August 21, 2013, 9:15 a.m. EDT.

PLACE: Broadcasting Board of Governors, Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 
Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.

SUBJECT: Notice of Closed Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors.
SUMMARY: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will 
meet in a closed session to consider the appointment of the Chief 
Financial Officer. This meeting should be closed to public observation 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) in order to protect the privacy 
interests of candidates considered but not selected for the position. 
In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act and BBG policies, 
the meeting will be recorded and a transcript of the proceedings, 
subject to the redaction of information protected by 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(6), will be made available to the public. The publicly-
releasable transcript will be available for download at www.bbg.gov 
within 21 days of the date of the meeting.
    Information regarding member votes to close the meeting and 
expected attendees can also be found on the Agency's public Web site.

[[Page 51141]]

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-20223 Filed 8-16-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
#### State v. Stone

111,989

12/14/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
# C_2022380EN.01001701.xml

| 3.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/17

---

Action brought on 12 July 2022 — PV v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(Case T-443/22)

(2022/C 380/20)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: PV (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decisions, namely (a) Decision 015/2022 of 23 March 2022 of the College of the defendant rejecting the complaint of 3 December 2021 against Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (b) Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (c) Decision 021/2022 of 30 May 2022 of the College of the defendant and (d) any other related action or omission of the organs of the defendant, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions, namely (a) Decision 015/2022 of 23 March 2022 of the College of the defendant rejecting the complaint of 3 December 2021 against Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (b) Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (c) Decision 021/2022 of 30 May 2022 of the College of the defendant and (d) any other related action or omission of the organs of the defendant,

| — | order the defendant to pay the total amount of EUR 100 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the total amount of EUR 100 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered, and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant raises the same pleas as those relied on in Case T-442/22, PU v European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-KSB
FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         385,136
<SECURITIES>                                 3,356,755
<RECEIVABLES>                                  309,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,056,663
<PP&E>                                       5,569,965
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,572,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,863,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          273,449
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,368
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,369,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,863,616
<SALES>                                      2,838,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,901,308
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  387,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,110,025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                925,212
<INCOME-TAX>                                   133,834
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            791,378
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   791,378
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.68
        

</TABLE>
AFS-12-030-E November 21, 2011

Exemption No. 10043A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-10283

Mr. Travis J. Garnick

President Butler Aircraft Company

1050 SE. Sisters Avenue Redmond, OR 97756

Dear Mr. Garnick:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10043. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the condition

and limitation.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 11, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Butler Aircraft Company (Butler) for an extension of Exemption No. 10043. That exemption from § 91.529(a)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Butler to operate its Boeing Douglas DC-6 and DC-7 airplanes without a flight engineer during flightcrew training, ferry operations, and test flights that are conducted to prepare for firefighting operations carried out under 14 CFR part 137.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Butler.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10043 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the condition and limitation listed below.

Condition and Limitation

This exemption is not valid for operations outside of the United States.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 10043 to March 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service