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

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 36911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13585]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9947-38-Region 4; CERCLA-04-2016-3751]

Cannon Drive Drum Superfund Site Social Circle, Walton County, 
Georgia; Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement with 
Carter Jackson Inc., The Estate of Charles E. Carter and the United 
States Defense Logistics Agency, concerning the Cannon Drive Drum 
Superfund Site located in Social Circle, Walton County, Georgia. The 
settlement addresses recovery of CERCLA costs for a cleanup action 
performed by the EPA at the Site.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until 
July 8, 2016. The Agency will consider all comments received and may 
modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if comments 
received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the 
proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by 
contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact 
information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by 
referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:
     Internet: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices U.S. Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund 
Division, Attn: Paula V. Painter, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303.
     Email: Painter.Paula@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404-562-8887.

    Dated: May 11, 2016.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Enforcement and Community Engagement Branch, Superfund Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-13585 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00072-CR

IN RE WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB

Original Proceeding

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-678-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding filed on March 8, 2023, relator, William Charles Webb, 

seeks to compel McLennan County District Clerk Jon R. Gimble to receive all papers in 

this proceeding and, pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, 

transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals “a copy of the application for writ of habeas 

corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was 

made if the convicting court decides that there are no issues to be resolve.” See TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07.
In re Webb Page 2

We do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk 

unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221. Webb has 

not shown that a writ of mandamus directed to the district clerk is necessary to enforce 

our jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss Webb’s March 8, 2023 petition for writ of 

mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Smith, and

Justice Wright1

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 15, 2023

Do not publish

[OT06]

1 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals, 

sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 

75.002, 75.003.
No. 11-5098.

#### Rhonda Taylor, on Behalf of Kevin R. Gordon, Petitioner v. Brad Livingston, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, et al.

565 U.S. 1150, 132 S. Ct. 1080,

181 L. Ed. 2d 798,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 488.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 889, 132 S. Ct. 268, 181 L. Ed. 2d 158, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5219.
No. 11-7802.

#### Rene Salazar, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1170, 132 S. Ct. 1123,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1002,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 694.

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 440 Fed. Appx. 400.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4649 

To authorize the Secretary of Education to provide assistance to local educational agencies serving homeless children and youths displaced by Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or Wilma. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 22, 2005 

Mrs. BIGGERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Education to provide assistance 

to local educational agencies serving homeless children 

and youths displaced by Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or 

Wilma. 

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 ‘‘Hope for Homeless 

5 Kids Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR HOMELESS YOUTH. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Education shall 

8 provide assistance to local educational agencies serving 
2 

•HR 4649 IH 

1 homeless children and youths displaced by Hurricane 

2 Katrina, Rita, or Wilma, consistent with section 723 of 

3 the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

4 11433), including identification, enrollment assistance, as5 sessment and school placement assistance, transportation, 

6 coordination of school services, supplies, referrals for 

7 health, mental health, and other needs. 

8 (b) EXCEPTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.— 

9 (1) EXCEPTION.—For purposes of providing as10 sistance under subsection (a), subsections (c) and 

11 (e)(1) of section 722 and subsections (b) and (c) of 

12 section 723 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assist13 ance Act (42 U.S.C. 11432(c) and (e)(1), 11433(b) 

14 and (c)) shall not apply. 

15 (2) DISBURSEMENT.—The Secretary of Edu16 cation shall disburse funding provided under sub17 section (a) to State educational agencies based on 

18 demonstrated need, as determined by the Secretary, 

19 and such State educational agencies shall distribute 

20 funds available under subsection (c) to local edu21 cational agencies based on demonstrated need, for 

22 the purposes of carrying out section 723 of the 

23 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 

24 U.S.C. 11433). 
3 

•HR 4649 IH 

1 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

2 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

3 $50,000,000. 

Æ
No. 11-6648.

#### Scott R. Zabriskie, Petitioner v. 7-11, Inc., et al.

565 U.S. 1077, 132 S. Ct. 818,

181 L. Ed. 2d 523,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8705.

December 5, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
No. 10-1488.

#### Todd Jason Derry, Petitioner v. Florida.

565 U.S. 1155, 132 S. Ct. 1089,

181 L. Ed. 2d 976,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 761.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.

Same case below, 56 So. 3d 774.
No. 11-7757.

#### Steven Michael Capshaw, aka Mike Capshaw, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1169, 132 S. Ct. 1121,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1000,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 658.

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 440 Fed. Appx. 738.
No. 11-7049.

#### Sherman Bobb, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1073, 132 S. Ct. 792,

181 L. Ed. 2d 509,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8433.

November 28, 2011.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 433 Fed. Appx. 68.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4693 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4693

 To amend title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include the 
    University of the District of Columbia as an eligible graduate 
                  institution, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2006

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include the 
    University of the District of Columbia as an eligible graduate 
                  institution, 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 ``University of the District of 
Columbia Graduate Programs Act''.

SEC. 2. PROFESSIONAL OR GRADUATE INSTITUTIONS.

    (a) Eligible Institutions.--Section 326(e)(1) of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1063b(e)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (Q);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (R) 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(S) University of the District of Columbia 
                qualified graduate programs.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 326 of the Higher Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1063b) is further amended--
            (1) in subsection (e)(3), by striking ``(Q) and (R)'' and 
        inserting ``(Q), (R), and (S)'';
            (2) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``(Q) and (R)'' and 
        inserting ``(Q), (R), and (S)''; and
            (3) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``(A) through (R)'' 
        and inserting ``(A) through (S)''.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 399(a)(2)(B) of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1068h(a)(2)(B)) is amended to 
read as follows:
                    ``(B) There are authorized to be appropriated to 
                carry out section 326 such sums as may be necessary for 
                fiscal year 2006 and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal 
                years.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 11-7139.

#### Michael Anthony Taylor, Petitioner v. Troy Steele, Warden.

565 U.S. 1161, 132 S. Ct. 1097,

181 L. Ed. 2d 985,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 791,

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 341 S.W.3d 634.
No. 11-712.

#### EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., nka Dish Network, L.L.C., et al., Petitioners v. NDS Group PLS, nka NDS Group Limited, et al.

565 U.S. 1158, 132 S. Ct. 1118,

181 L. Ed. 2d 981,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 751.

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 764.
No. 11-7623.

#### Ted Russell Schwartz Murray, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1136, 132 S. Ct. 1065,

181 L. Ed. 2d 781,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 428.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 648 F.3d 251.
## NO. 12

- 14

- 00194

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DONALD WHITE,
APPELLANT

V.

JP MORGAN BANK NATIO NAL ASSOCIATION, ITS ASS IGNS AND SUCCESSORS,

APPELLEE S §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 4

COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure, after notice, to provide proof of payment for

the clerk's record. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). The clerk's record was due September 26, 2014, and

the county cle rk filed a motion to extend the filing deadline. As grounds for the extension, the

clerk informed the court that Appellant had failed to pay for the preparation of the clerk’s record.

The court extended the time for filing the clerk's record to October 2 7, 2014. The court also

notified Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or before September 22, 2014,

he provided this court with proof of full payment for the clerk's record. The September 22

deadline has now passed, and Appellant has f ailed to provide proof of full payment for the clerk's

record. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

42.3(c).

Opinion delivered October 30, 2014.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 30 , 2014

NO. 12

- 14

- 00194

- CV

DONALD WHITE, Appellant

V.
JP MORGAN BANK NATIO NAL ASSOCIATION,
ITS ASSIGNS AND SUCC ESSORS,

Appellee s

Appeal from the County Cour t at Law No 4

of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 004

- 00652

- 2014)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED an d DECREED by this court that

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J

.
Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court. County of Ravalli.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- RYAN JAMES LEWIS, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-15-177

DECISION

On May 11, 2016, the Court sentenced the Defendant as follows: Charge I: A commitment to a prison operated by the Montana Department of Corrections *112for a period of five (5) years, for the offense of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs, 4th or Subsequent Offense, a Felony, in violation of §61-8-401, MCA; and Charge II: A commitment to a prison operated by the Montana Department of Corrections for a term of ten (10) years, for the offense of Criminal Endangerment, a Felony, in violation of §45-5-207, MCA. The Court ordered the sentences to run consecutively to each other and to any other sentences the Defendant was subject to.

Done in open Court this 17th day of November, 2016.

DATED this 8th day of December, 2016.

On November 17, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant appeared by Vision Net from the Crossroads Correctional Center and was represented by Adam Cook, third year law student working under the supervision of Brent Getty of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member.
App J 

DSCPH 4155.2 

 ************************* 

 MONOGRAPH No. BF1 

 ************************* 

Item: Applesauce, Color A, Flavor A, Style A, Grade A, Canned 

NSN: 8915-00-128-1179 SPECIFICATION: US STD for Grade 

COMPONENT CLASSIFICATION: Secondary 

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM: 

APPEARANCE: Light yellow color, bright. 

ODOR: Applesauce. 

FLAVOR: Sweet; apple. 

TEXTURE: Smooth with some pulp. 

ESTIMATED SHELF-LIFE AT: 80 DEGREES F: 36 months 

100 DEGREES F: 6 months 

 

POSSIBLE DETERIORATIVE CHANGES: 

APPEARANCE: Dull, slightly brown color. 

ODOR: Slightly sour. 

FLAVOR: Slightly sour applesauce. 

TEXTURE: Watery with fine pulp. 

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: None. 

SPECIAL NOTES: None
No. 10-7333.

#### Jesse Lee Vardaro, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1096, 131 S. Ct. 807,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9527.

178 L. Ed. 2d 539,

December 6, 2010.

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

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 747.
Powers of Attorney, Christopher T.  Ashe


 Exhibit (10)(b) 

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORPORATION 
 POWERS OF ATTORNEY FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE 
 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of
the undersigned constitutes and appoints each of Matthew M. Grove, Thomas F. English, Paul W. Horrocks, Linda M. Reimer and George E. Silos, as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, each with full power of substitution and resubstitution
for him in his name, place and stead, to sign any and all registration statements or other filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission or any state regulatory agency or authority applicable to New York Life Insurance and Annuity
Corporation Variable Annuity Separate Account – II (File Number 033-53344) and any amendments or supplements thereto, and withdrawals thereof, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission or any state regulatory agency or authority granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done, as fully to all
intents and purposes as he might or could do in person in his capacity as a Director or officer of New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. 
 These Powers of Attorney may be signed in one or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. 
  

			
		
	 /s/ Christopher T. Ashe
 Christopher T. Ashe
	  	  

Steven D. Lash

		
	  
 Christopher O. Blunt
	  	  
 Theodore A. Mathas

		
	  
 Frank M. Boccio
	  	  
 Mark W. Pfaff

		
	  
 Stephen P. Fisher
	  	  
 Arthur H. Seter

		
	  
 John T. Fleurant
	  	  
 Michael E. Sproule

		
	  
 Robert M. Gardner
	  	  
 Joel M. Steinberg

		
	  
 Solomon Goldfinger
	  	  
 Susan A. Thrope


 Dated: April 11, 2012
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 10-05 STANDARD 22.26 -2.35 -14.78

Tolerance

1 1

FULL ORANGE 

LIMIT 21.26 -2.27 -14.05 -1.00 0.08 0.73 0.92

2 2 GREEN LIMIT 22.60 -2.24 -14.25 0.34 0.11 0.53 0.46

3 3

THIN BLUE 

LIMIT 22.85 -1.92 -15.28 0.59 0.43 -0.50 0.77

4 4 THIN LIMIT 23.47 -2.61 -15.30 1.21 -0.26 -0.52 1.02

5 5 VIOLET LIMIT 22.11 -1.85 -14.94 -0.15 0.50 -0.16 0.58

6 6

THIN GREEN 

LIMIT 23.15 -2.39 -14.61 0.89 -0.04 0.17 0.69

7 7

FULL RED 

LIMIT 22.14 -2.33 -14.56 -0.12 0.02 0.22 0.18

8 8 YELLOW LIMIT 22.60 -2.24 -14.25 0.34 0.11 0.53 0.46

9

Shade Number BLUE 1651 Piece/Roll Number 10-05

DLA/AIR FORCE SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT April 19, 2018

Fabric Nomenclature JACKET & PANTS, UNISEX, PTU, 100% 

POLYESTER

PD-04-08

PD-04-10

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

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

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF
ITEM: Pasta and Italian Sausage Links ************************

 in Tomato Sauce, Shelf Stable, Ckd * MONOGRAPH:: 1D4

 (PST) Primary ************************

NSN: 8940-01-476-2727 Polymeric Tray ITEM SPECIFICATION: PCR-P 017

 8940-01-476-2735 Tray Pack Can ITEM SPECIFICATION: PCR-P 016

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM:

APPEARANCE: A moderately thick red-orange tomato sauce with broken pasta pieces 

and spice particles; free oil separating from the sauce. Medium dark brown meaty 

sausage.

ODOR: Cooked sausage and cooked tomato sauce; Italian spice blend.

FLAVOR: Mild Italian spiced beefy sausage. Spicy cooked tomato sauce. Bland pasta.

TEXTURE: Smooth moderately thick tomato sauce. Slightly rubbery soft cooked pasta. 

Tender to firm meaty sausage. Oily mouth feel.

ESTIMATED SHELF-LIFE AT: 80 DEGREES F: 36 months

 100 DEGREES F: 6 months

POSSIBLE DETERIORATIVE CHANGES:

Appearance: Sauce may darken and absorb into the pasta.

Odor: May exhibit slight loss of spice aroma; slightly scorched or rancid tomato odor.

Flavor: Loss of flavor; oxidized or rancid.

Texture: Thick sauce. Mushy pasta. Softening or toughening of sausage. 

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: None.
Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- SUSAN MAKI SCHAFF, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-15-095

DECISION

On August 25, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to the Montana State Women’s Prison for fifteen (15) years, to run consecutively to any previous sentences, for the offense of Count I: Driving a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, a Felony. It was ordered that Defendant be designated as a Subsequent Persistent Felony Offender for sentencing under §46-18-501 and §46-18-502, MCA. The Defendant received credit for time spent in pre-trial incarceration from January 21, 2015 to August 25, 2015.

On April 8, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant was present and was represented by Peter Ohman of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented. The *31Defendant’s brother-in-law, Stephen Lethert, was present and testified. The Defendant’s sister, Charla Lethert, was present and did not testify.

Done in open Court this 8th day of April, 2016.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2016.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member and Hon. Brad Newman, Member.