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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43362

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRITTNEY MARIE MENDEL aka 

BENEDICT,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 437

Filed: March 17, 2016

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, 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; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Brittney Marie Mendel was found guilty by a jury of battery on a law enforcement 

officer, felony, Idaho Code §§ 18-915(3), -903(a). The district court imposed a unified five-year 

sentence, with two years determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed Mendel on probation 

for five years. Mendel appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion in refusing to 

grant a withheld judgment. 

After a person has been convicted of a crime, a district court may, in its discretion, 

withhold judgment. I.C. § 19-2601(3); State v. Trejo, 132 Idaho 872, 880, 979 P.2d 1230, 1238 

(Ct. App. 1999). The refusal to grant a withheld judgment will not be deemed an abuse of 

discretion if the trial court has sufficient information to determine that a withheld judgment 
2

would be inappropriate. State v. Edghill, 134 Idaho 218, 219, 999 P.2d 255, 256 (Ct. App. 2000)

(quoting State v. Geier, 209 Idaho 963, 965, 712 P.2d 664, 666 (Ct. App. 1985)). Factors that 

bear on the imposition of sentence also apply in review of the discretionary decision to withhold 

judgment. Geier, 209 Idaho at 965, 712 P.2d at 666. Denial of a withheld judgment may be 

justified merely by the nature of the crime. Trejo, 132 Idaho at 880, 979 P.2d at 1238 (deliberate 

shooting showed withheld judgment to have been properly denied). Prior to sentencing, the 

district court reviewed the trial audio tapes and the presentence investigation. Based on the 

record, the district court’s denial of Mendel’s request for a withheld judgment was not an abuse 

of discretion. 

Therefore, Mendel’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
CYBER MERCHANTS EXCHANGE, INC.

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

I, Frank S. Yuan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Cyber Merchants Exchange,  Inc.
(the "Registrant");

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules  13a-15(e) and  15d-15(e))  for the  registrant  and have: a)
designed such  disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such  disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which  this  report is being  prepared;  b)  evaluated  the
effectiveness  of  the  registrant's  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  and
presented  in  this  report  our  conclusions  about  the  effectiveness  of the
disclosure controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such  evaluation;  and c) disclosed in this report any change in
the registrant's  internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,  or is
reasonably  likely to affect,  the registrant's  internal control over financial
reporting; and;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or  persons   performing  the  equivalent   functions):   a)  all   significant
deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the design or  operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the  registrant's  ability to record,  process,  summarize and report  financial
information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other  employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: November 15, 2004

/S/ FRANK S. YUAN
------------------------------
FRANK S. YUAN
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
No. 11-41.

#### Wolf Vierich, aka Wolfgang Vierich, Petitioner v. MGM Grand Hotel, LLC, et al.

565 U.S. 880, 132 S. Ct. 245,

181 L. Ed. 2d 140,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5428.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.

Same case below, 127 Nev. 1183, 373 P.3d 970.
# C_2022347EN.01023101.xml

| 9.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/231 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/231

---

P9_TA(2022)0060

Tax-free shops situated in the French terminal of the Channel Tunnel *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 9 March 2022 on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2008/118/EC and Directive (EU) 2020/262 (recast) as regards tax-free shops situated in the French terminal of the Channel Tunnel (COM(2021)0817 — C9-0016/2022 — 2021/0418(CNS))

(Special legislative procedure — consultation)

(2022/C 347/24)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2021)0817), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2021)0817),

| — | having regard to Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0016/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0016/2022),

| — | having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A9-0035/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A9-0035/2022),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JEFFREY CLAYTON BONNEY, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-2189

LT Case No. 2019-CF-1146

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed October 11, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Citrus County, 

Richard A. Howard, Judge.

J. Michael Blackstone, of J. Michael

Blackstone, P.A., Crystal River, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, 

Deborah A. Chance and Pamela J. Koller, 

Assistant Attorney Generals, Daytona Beach, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, WALLIS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
No. 07-15-00068-CR

Jeremy Edward Sustaita

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 181st District Court

of Potter County

December 9, 2015

Opinion by Justice Campbell

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 9, 2015

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended for which

let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 11-02 STANDARD 16.40 0.90 -9.47

Tolerance

1 1 VIOLET LIMIT 15.97 1.06 -9.92 -0.43 0.16 -0.45 0.6

2 2 THIN BLUE 

LIMIT 16.24 0.74 -9.99 -0.16 -0.16 -0.52 0.53

3 3 THIN LIMIT 16.58 1.01 -10.20 0.18 0.11 -0.73 0.65

4 4 YELLOW LIMIT 16.38 0.97 -9.54 -0.02 0.07 -0.07 0.11

5 5 FULL LIMIT 16.14 0.86 -9.72 -0.26 -0.04 -0.25 0.33

6 6 THIN ORANGE 

LIMIT 17.05 0.73 -9.91 0.65 -0.17 -0.44 0.77

7 7 FULL BLUE 

LIMIT 15.75 1.11 -10.13 -0.65 0.21 -0.66 0.87

8 8 FULL YELLOW 

ORANGE LIMIT 16.15 0.85 -9.54 -0.25 -0.05 -0.07 0.25

9 9 RED LIMIT 16.89 1.09 -9.74 0.49 0.19 -0.27 0.58

10 10 THIN VIOLET 

LIMIT 16.76 1.18 -10.10 0.36 0.28 -0.63 0.71

11 11 YELLOW LIMIT 16.56 0.79 -9.17 0.16 -0.11 0.30 0.32

12 12 THIN YELLOW 

GREEN LIMIT 16.92 0.63 -9.86 0.52 -0.27 -0.39 0.72

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF

Shade Number BLUE 1605 Piece/Roll Number 11-02

DLA/AIR FORCE SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT December 27, 2017

Fabric Nomenclature POLYESTER/WOOL GABARDINE MIL-C-10176
13 13 GREEN LIMIT 16.49 0.57 -9.75 0.09 -0.33 -0.28 0.53

14 14 BLUE GREEN 

LIMIT 16.73 0.63 -10.47 0.33 -0.27 -1.00 1.01

15 15 THIN BLUE 

GREEN LIMIT 16.69 0.70 -10.09 0.29 -0.20 -0.62 0.68

16 16 FULL RED 

LIMIT 16.10 1.20 -9.89 -0.30 0.30 -0.42 0.59

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY
<page>  EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Charter
Graham L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christian
Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, 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 Partnership.









By: /s/ Christian Angstadt

Name:	   Christian Angstadt
Title:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
	   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:   May 15, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20046]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals 
and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or 
commercial property such as patentable material, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the grant 
applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory 
Council.
    Date: September 3-4, 1998.
    Open: September 3, 1998, 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: For discussion of program policies and issues.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, 
Building 31, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: September 3, 1998, 2:00 PM to Adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, 
Building 31, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Ronald G. Geller, PHD, Director, Division of 
Extramural Affairs, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, PHS, DHHS, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 
435-0260.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 21, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-20046 Filed 7-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
(1) Adjusting Price $17.61 CWT

(2) Base Price $17.30 CWT

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.31

(4) Price change per gallon $0.03

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.01

Price change per quart $0.01 

Price change per pint $0.00

Price change per 14-oz pg. $0.00

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.00

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price change per half pint $0.00

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.03

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.01

Price adjustment per quart $0.01

Price adjustment per pint $0.00

Price change per 14-oz pg. $0.00

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.00

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032 Alt. 

Based on California Marketing Area Federal Milk Order #51

 Effective Date: Apr. 4th, 2021
No. 11-6037.

#### David Graham, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 927, 132 S. Ct. 363,

181 L. Ed. 2d 230,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6849.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

Same case below, 12 A.3d 1159.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00319-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 48th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 048-272000-14

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

COMPASS FRACTURING SERVICES, LLC, Appellant

V.

FREEMYER INDUSTRIAL PRESSURE, LP, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered appellant’s “Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal 

Pursuant to Settlement.” We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Each party must bear its own costs of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: October 31, 2019
ex10_17.htm








Exhibit 10.17




 


PROJECT ASSIGNMENT







This Project Assignment is issued under the Independent Contractor Services Agreement (“Original Agreement”) dated April 17, 2003, between Scientific Learning Corporation of Oakland, California (“SLc”) and Dr. Paula Tallal of New York, New York (“Contractor”).







Services to be performed:


Consulting services related to SLc’s customer relationships and research planning, specifically:




	 	
(1) 

	
public speaking to the education community and to the speech and language professional community;











	 	
(2) 

	
assisting with SLc’s relationship with private providers of Fast ForWord products; and











	 	
(3) 

	
assisting with the relationship between the scientific community and SLc.














Services will be performed on a schedule mutually agreed upon by SLc and Contractor.







Time Period during which Services will be performed:


The term of this contract will begin January 1, 2012 and end December 31, 2012, subject to termination as provided in Section 6a of the Agreement.







Fees for Services:


Fee will be based on the schedule below:


Fee will be a rate per day of $1,500.







Expenses:


SLc will reimburse Contractor for reasonable business expenses incurred in connection with providing services requested by SLc, in accordance with SLc’s regular business expense reimbursement policies.







Note:   This Project Assignment is governed by the terms of an Independent Contractor Services Agreement in effect between SLc and Contractor.  Any item in this Project Assignment which is inconsistent with that Agreement is invalid.


 



	
Signed:

	
/s/ Andy Myers

	  	
/s/ Paula Tallal


	  	
For Client Hiring Manager

	  	
For Contractor


	  	  	  	  
	
Dated:

	
2/24/2012

	  	
2/24/2012
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR


RULE
15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report of Spine Pain Management, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
F. Donovan, M.D., the principal financial officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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:
      May 12, 2010
              By:
              /s/ William F. Donovan,
  M.D.William
      F. Donovan, M.D.Principal
      Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.01








CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Managed Futures Charter Graham L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Davis, President of Demeter Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, 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 Partnership.































By:
/s/Walter DavisName:
Walter DavisTitle:
President ofDemeter Management LLC,General Partner of the registrantDate:
November 10, 2010
No. 11-5304.

#### Elena Sturdza, Petitioner v. United Arab Emirates, et al.

565 U.S. 900, 132 S. Ct. 295,

181 L. Ed. 2d 178,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5391,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

*179Same case below, 405 Fed. Appx. 512.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6674

TURUK SAUNDERS, a/k/a Turick Frazier,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER PRISON,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 17-7227

TURUK SAUNDERS, a/k/a Turick Frazier,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER PRISON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:16-cv-01724-RMG)

Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: December 6, 2017
2

Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Turuk Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, 

Susannah Rawl Cole, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH 

CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Turuk Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saunders has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 11-5481.

#### Diego Choxj Cha, aka Lorenzo Sac, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 910, 132 S. Ct. 318,

181 L. Ed. 2d 196,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5832.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 431 Fed. Appx. 790.