alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Montana Seventh Judicial District Court. County of Dawson.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- TIMOTHY TOM HALL, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-15-081

DECISION

On June 1, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a period of ten (10) years with five (5) suspended, for the offense of Count I: Theft, a felony, in violation of §45-6-103, MCA. The Defendant was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1501 to the Sacred Heart Catholic Church and $219.99 in Dawson County Justice Court case TK 2015-1683. Defendant was also assessed court fees and surcharges including Public Defender fee.

On August 4, 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.

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 *73presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

Done in open Court this 4th day of August, 2016.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2016.

The *majority*of 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. Judge Gilbert and Judge Seeley concur that the sentence be affirmed. Judge Newman dissents.

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

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

Judge Newman

dissents: “I recognize that this Defendant has a miserable prior record and the District Court saw the sentence at issue and custody as a means to protect the public, at least for a short period of time. However, it is my belief that rejecting the probationary sentence recommended by all interested parties was clearly excessive. In this case the prosecution recommended probation, the Probation Officer recommended probation, and the victim recommended probation. All of the interested parties, save the District Court, realized that the only realistic way to change Mr. Hall’s conduct and future is to try something other than custody. So I do think that returning the Defendant to custody, where custody has failed numerous times, renders the sentence clearly excessive. I also note that the offense was nonviolent and that custody would not be required to protect the public.”

Hon. Brad Newman, Member.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of First National Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2004 (the Report), I,
Glen W. Fausset, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted 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. /s/ Glen W. Fausset Glen W. Fausset
President and Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,339] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 23, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc., Portland, Oregon. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of February 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9-4553 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
No. 09-8041.

#### John Gonzales, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 948, 130 S. Ct. 1528,

176 L. Ed. 2d 128,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1302.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 09-7931.

#### Douglas Kelly Pye, Petitioner v. Texas.

559 U.S. 946, 130 S. Ct. 1517,

176 L. Ed. 2d 124,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1309.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, denied.
----

**CERTIFICATION OF****CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER   PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 I, Bruce T. Leitch, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief  Financial Officer of NorPac Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”),  hereby 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:

|   | (i)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company,        for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2004, and to which this certification        is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Report”) fully complies        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange        Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|   | (ii)   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations        of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                            |

|   | By:    | */s/Bruce T. Leitch*                                |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | __________________________________                  |
|   | Name:  | BRUCE T. LEITCH                                     |
|   |   |                                                |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |                                                |
|   | Date:  | February 18, 2005                                   |

*A signed original of this written statement required by  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company  and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which  it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under  the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made  before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation  language contained in such filing.*

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7130

ELIZABETH KNEWASSER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

SHERIFF, Botetourt County,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-98-143-R)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Knewasser, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Knewasser seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Knewasser v. Angelone, No. CA-98-143-

R (W.D. Va. July 22, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
No. 09-6136.

#### Raymond Nesbitt, Petitioner v. Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County.

559 U.S. 964, 130 S. Ct. 1572,

176 L. Ed. 2d 155,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1059.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 974, 130 S. Ct. 469, 175 L. Ed. 2d 315, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 7525.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-40]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

[Docket ID USAF-2008-0063]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to Delete a System of Records.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete a system of 
records notice in its inventory of record systems subject to the 
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: The changes will be effective on March 9, 2009 unless comments 
are received that would result in a contrary determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Officer, Office 
of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, SAF/XCISI, 
1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20330-1800.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kenneth Brodie at (703) 696-7557.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force systems of 
records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 
amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available 
from the address above.
    The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete a system of 
records notice in its inventory of record systems subject to the 
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion 
is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 
(5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or 
altered system report.

    Dated: December 30, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
F036 AFPC O

SYSTEM NAME:
    Aviation Service Historical Data File (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31793).

REASON:
    This is a duplicate system that was integrated with F011 AF XO A, 
Aviation Resource Management System (ARMS) (December 26, 2002, 67 FR 
78777). There should be only one system for historical Aviation Service 
Records.

 [FR Doc. E9-40 Filed 1-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.J.C., A MINOR

PETITION OF: B.A.G., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 598 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: F.E.C., A MINOR

PETITION OF: B.A.G., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 599 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.C., A MINOR

PETITION OF: B.G., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 600 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of January, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

I, Timothy M. Mayleben, Chief Financial Officer, of Esperion Therapeutics,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:

(1)  The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2003 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

* * *



|                                                                      |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Timothy M. Mayleben

Timothy M. Mayleben,
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

Date: August 14, 2003
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4757 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a permanent 

hold harmless provision for sole community hospitals under the Medicare 

prospective payment system for covered outpatient department services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2006 

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for a permanent hold harmless provision for sole community hospitals under the Medicare prospective payment 

system for covered outpatient department services. 

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


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4757 IH 

1 SECTION 1. PERMANENT HOLD HARMLESS FOR SOLE COM2 MUNITY HOSPITALS UNDER THE MEDICARE 

3 PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR HOS4 PITAL OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1833(t)(7)(D) of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(7)(D)) is amended 

7 by adding at the end the following new clause: 

8 ‘‘(iii) PERMANENT HOLD HARMLESS

9 FOR SOLE COMMUNITY HOSPITALS.—In the 

10 case of a sole community hospital (as de11 fined in section 1886(d)(5)(D)(iii)), for 

12 covered OPD services furnished after De13 cember 31, 2005, for which the PPS 

14 amount is less than the pre-BBA amount, 

15 the amount of payment under this sub16 section shall be increased by the amount of 

17 such difference.’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

19 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to payment for 

20 OPD services furnished on and after January 1, 2006. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
!"#$%&!  '# ($! )*+,--./0,1.23

456 $ 5 #7 8&59!56)*+:;<2=;<,>*;2?@3 $ 5 #7

A!&9&!5&55 B$ !&$ CD:EFG;=22;F0:H>;IFJ;,;2,>KL*MN:K23

&9&OP #QOO$

5&&9&O#&$R&P!P SS'T9 P&!&U$

U&!UOO!88VWS''

&

$ 5 VAR&V B&$O6$ 5

V&9 5B$& ! B$ !&$" 5!  #7WSSW5WX'

SVS! UVS

V5&5)JYY*ZY[\]3

^^_`
abb

	




cdefghiejklgemenohpqrqsfsqhjqoflejnenfooesthmsdqjuselvwxcdedhkmfjnnfseoyerqtqenthmmereqyshtzttemo qoe{sejnen| }~

C~}}~~}}}~B&O B6 &$R! TO5P9! $U5&%

#O&$5P!&5B %$# B BB#  %% &!55&#$B59&6O!($ ! B6  BB}}~

~}~}Q~Q}~~}}}}~

Q}~}}}~}}

}~C}}}~~}

 ~~}}~}~}}}~}}}~Q}~

S&$$ !!P&!5&## #& !5&&)*+=2H/=2K3

&%$%&!P 55#&! )J-20/+I,H;<:=/;I3%$%&!PB %!9&9&5!%$ !&$ 5! 

!9V&



%& U!95$ !&$" 59 5B5 BO$%&59!&U$%&!PC~H0<,G0<,>2G/>-,I/>:++/02F,--=:-=/,;/:>  K,;2F2;0EB %!9Q#&! %&% 6 BB&7V7C



$%##O9!&O&P9!!5! #&! &% 6 B



_b$  }~Q }~}~}}~ }~}~~}}_

5$# ! B&9!59!"9 5B$& !C=,>/2K1ING20;/:><2,K/>GF/>0.HK/>G:./0/;,;/:>0:>;=,0;GH120;?,;;2=<2=2+2,G/1.2E3

~}}Q~}}~}&V&Q~Q}~}

'&!&9&!5O BP!)ZI-2:=-=/>;3

!!8'VWVW'SWAV8V

#}~}}~


	 CUVWA7

#~}P&B&CA$B'7S7

'$ !&$ " BB  4!5& B&9$&

)J/>,;H=2:+-2=G:>,H;<:=/2K;:G/>3 )J/>,;H=2:+N:>;=,0;/>++/02=3

4&!&9&!5O B$ !&$!P BB$CZI-2:=-=/>;

¡f¢£¤rhlypesqj¥uselo¦fjnv§|fjnmeskmjqj¥

5O& ### 

!$##O6$%&!

8VV !&U!

#%O&5O#%&#&W'V4

&

}}~~9

##$S'W878WVA4B&S'W878WSAA}~~(9 ̈}

5O& ### 

!$##O6$%&!

8VV !&U!

#%O&5O#%&#&W'V4

&

'$5&P!5

~~9

SVS7! UV

4$5&P!5





B&'SS7W



5 %)J-20/+I;I-2:+?:K/+/0,;/:>,>K,H;<:=/;I3

4$

7BB$U5&

$}}

(

$ !&$5$ 5

#VVVA

S&9!59!"9 5B$& !! 

C

$%$R !

&&9!59! B O$& !! 

5&5CJYY*ZY[\\

^_`
bb
a	

	



©

	
`

_

a^«_

b¬^	­

® ̄°°±223 ́μ ̄±2
	
 

 
	

		

 !"#$%&&%'()*+,,&(#-.%/%).0+/.12341567768695:;<



= !"#-,#/($(/+.(%)&(-.#>?#&%'"+-?##)@,>+.#>+)>()/%0,%0+.#>().%."(-/%).0+/. =/%,A%$."(->%/@B#).(-

+C+(&+?&#%)."#1@?-(-.#)/#D0%E#)1(.#<"..,<FF''' >&+ B(&F!0%%,1@,,%0.F1@?-(-.#)/#FG,#0+.(%)+&60+.(%)-F$0%E#)F



5 2HI6!6J5:K!0+(&L(MKI#/%C#0AK2+/N+*#>()+D&#M(?%@/"K1"#&$1.+?&#
No. 10-1519.

#### Florida, Petitioner v. David Lamar Garland.

565 U.S. 1045, 132 S. Ct. 574,

181 L. Ed. 2d 441,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8125.

November 14, 2011.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Petition for writ of certio-rari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 70 So. 3d 609.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds for interlocking directorates required by the 1990 amendment of Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 prohibits, with certain exceptions, one person from serving as a director or officer of two competing corporations if two thresholds are met. Competitor corporations are covered by Section 8 if each one has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $10,000,000, with the exception that no corporation is covered if the competitive sales of either corporation are less than $1,000,000. Section 8(a)(5) requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The new thresholds, which take effect immediately, are $26,161,000 for Section 8(a)(1), and $2,616,100 for Section 8(a)(2)(A).

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 13, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James F. Mongoven, Bureau of Competition, Office of Policy and Coordination, (202) 326-2879.

Authority:15 U.S.C. § 19(a)(5).By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-418 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6750-01-S