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

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- BRADY S. KLEMP, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-15-385

Done in open Court this 5th day of May, 2016.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2016.

DECISION

On December 31, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a ten (10) year commitment to the Montana State Prison for the offense of Count I: Tampering with Witnesses and Informants, a Felony, in violation of §45-7-206, MCA. The sentence was ordered to run concurrent with the sentence imposed in DC-15-299. Count II was dismissed by the Court. The terms and conditions of probation are the same of those in Defendant’s Cause No. DC-15-299.

On May 5, 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 video conferencing from the Great Falls Regional Prison and was represented by Jennifer Streano of the Office of the State Public Defender. The Missoula County Deputy Attorney, Jordan Kilby, submitted a written statement with attachments but was not present.

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.

At the hearing, Defense Counsel raised an objection to the County Attorney’s written submission since it included police reports which were presumed not before the judge at the time of sentencing. Defendant was sentenced per a plea agreement. The Division sustained the objection and the statement and police reports were not considered.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. *49Kathy Seeley, Member.
Annette BAKER, Ph.D. v. The NORTH CAROLINA PSYCHOLOGY BOARD

No. 412P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

C. Amanda Martin, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Michael J. Tadych, Attorney at Law, for Baker, Annette (Ph.D.)

Sondra C. Panico, Assistant Attorney General, for The North Carolina Psychology Board.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of November 2018 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."

Davis, J. recused
In the MATTER OF: F.M.C.

No. COA18-1168

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 16, 2019

AFFIRMED.
#### J. A. Conner, et al., *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed April 20, 1928.

Petition for Rehearing Denied July 12, 1928.

*Evans Haile*and *Thomas W. Fielding,*Jor Plaintiffs in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court .being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Opinion Filed July 12, 1928.

Per Curiam. — Where the evidence clearly shows that a married woman actively aided and abetted in the commission of murder for which she and her husband were con*766victed, and that she was not acting under the influence or coercion of her husband, and the conviction accords with the facts and the law, the judgment will be affirmed.

*Evans Haile*and *Thomas W. Fielding,*for Plaintiffs in Error.

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Rehearing denied.

Per Curiam.

J. A. Conner, Hoyt Conner and Mrs. J. A. Conner were indicted for murder in the first decree. Hoyt Conner was acquitted, J. A. Conner and Mrs. J. A. Conner were found guilty of murder of the first degree with a recommendation for mercy, and each was sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment was affirmed on writ of error, and a rehearing is asked.

The evidence clearly shows that J. A. Conner inflicted the fatal wound and that Mrs. J. A. Conner was present actively aiding and abetting in. the commission of the heinous crime; and it also clearly appears from the evidence that she was not acting under the influence or coercion of her husband. The conviction accords with the facts and the law. See 30 C. J. 790-792; Bibb v. State 94 Ala. 31, 10 So. 506, 33 Ann. St. Rep. 88; 13 R. C. L. 1241.

Rehearing denied.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
NNSA Briefing to DNFSB on 

SRPPF Safety Strategy

February 21, 2024
• Facility Worker Self Protect (FWSP)

• Glovebox (GB) Procurement – Strategy and Safety 

Designation

• Actions Taken

• Path forward

Agenda

2
• Evaluated the SRPPF Safety Basis and determined there was an over 

reliance on FWSP.

• Requested a policy interpretation from EHSS. 

• Considered the control strategies for the protection of facility workers at other 

plutonium facilities in the defense nuclear complex.

• Updating the Consolidated Hazard Analysis and Safety Design Strategy to 

incorporate the EHSS policy on the appropriate use of FWSP.

Facility Worker Self Protect

3
Glovebox Procurement – Strategy and Safety Designation

Strategy

• Long lead procurement initiated and will be conducted in multiple phases.

• Fabrication will not start until design is complete.

• Evaluating additional structures, systems and components (SSCs) while 

minimizing impacts to existing design.

Safety Designation

• In the initial design 18 furnace GBs were designated as Safety Class (SC). 

Remaining GBs were designated as General Service.

• NNSA decided to designate the remaining GBs as Safety Significant (SS).

4
NNSA elevated the following controls to SS:

1. GB differential pressure alarms 

2. GB oxygen monitor alarms

3. Robust outer oxide containers

4. GB design 

• 18 GBs initially designated as SC will remain SC.

• All remaining GBs are designated as SS.

Actions Taken

5
5. 226-F Fire Suppression system from the Fire Water Tank / Pump 

system forward and throughout the 226-F facility.

6. Continuous Air Monitors (CAMs) and associated trouble alarm(s) to 

provide indication of degraded support systems.

As the design and safety analysis matures, additional controls will be 

evaluated, including for facility worker protection.

Actions Taken (cont.)

6
• Continue to engage throughout the remaining design to finalize the set of 

hazard controls.

• Follow through on CSO for Safety direction to the NNSA Enterprise to 

consider EHSS’s policy interpretation on the application of FWSP in future 

evaluations of approved safety basis documentation.

▪ Transmitted guidance on use & application of EHSS policy interpretation 

regarding FWSP to all NNSA Program and Field Office management.

▪ Requested NNSA Field Offices verify that the concept of integrating safety into 

design has been appropriately applied to safety basis documentation.

The Path Forward

7
• Identify lessons learned from safety strategy issues to include 

representation and insight from key stakeholders.

▪ Deep dive/root cause analysis to ensure that ongoing and future nuclear 

construction projects continue to meet safety requirements and properly and 

judiciously integrate safety into design.

▪ Results will be shared with the DNFSB and across the DOE Complex.

Path Forward (cont.)

8
Questions?

9
Summary of Compensation Payable to Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.12 
 Summary of Compensation Payable to Named Executive Officers 
 Base Salary.
The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo!”) has approved the 2011 base salaries of Yahoo!’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, and the other persons
named in the Summary Compensation Table of Yahoo!’s Proxy Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2010 who are currently employed as executive officers by Yahoo! (together, the “Named Executive
Officers”). The following table shows for each of the Named Executive Officers the annual base salary for 2011, which will become effective on April 1, 2011 (with the exception of the base salaries for Ms. Bartz and Mr. Yang,
which are unchanged from 2010): 
  

					
	 Name and Principal Position
	  	2011
Annual
Base
Salary ($)	 
	 Carol Bartz

Chief Executive Officer
	  	 	1,000,000	  
	 Jerry Yang

Chief Yahoo
	  	 	1	  
	 Timothy R. Morse

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	 	600,000	  
	 Michael J. Callahan

Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
	  	 	500,000	  

 Bonus. In addition to
receiving a base salary, Yahoo!’s Named Executive Officers are also generally eligible to receive an annual bonus. 
 Yahoo!’s Named
Executive Officer bonuses for 2011 will be determined under Yahoo!’s Executive Incentive Plan. The Named Executive Officers’ respective target bonus opportunities (expressed as a percentage of annual base salary) under the Executive
Incentive Plan for 2011 are as follows: Ms. Bartz - 200%, Mr. Morse - 120%, and Mr. Callahan - 90%. Mr. Yang will not participate in the Executive Incentive Plan. The Committee also has the ability to award discretionary bonuses
from time to time in circumstances the Committee determines to be appropriate. 
 Long-Term Incentives. The Named Executive
Officers are also eligible to receive equity-based incentives and other awards from time to time at the discretion of the Committee. Equity-based incentives granted by Yahoo! to the Named Executive Officers are reported on Form 4 filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
No. 09-8023.

#### Roberto Baez, Petitioner v. Robert J. James, Judge, Superior Court of Georgia, Douglas County.

559 U.S. 1117, 130 S. Ct. 2430,

176 L. Ed. 2d 943,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3825.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 948, 130 S. Ct. 1526, 176 L. Ed. 2d 128, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1202.
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 Transportation

###### Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), to be held from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (EDT) on Thursday, April 23, 2009, via conference call at the Corporation's Administration Headquarters, Suite W32-300, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. The agenda for this meeting will be as follows: Opening Remarks; Consideration of Minutes of Past Meeting; Quarterly Report; Old and New Business; Closing Discussion; Adjournment. 

                    Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public but limited to the                           ( print page 10126)                        space available. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact, not later than Friday, April 17, 2009, Anita K. Blackman, Chief of Staff, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-0091.                 

Any member of the public may present a written statement to the Advisory Board at any time. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on March 2, 2009. 

Collister Johnson, Jr., 

Administrator.

 [FR Doc. E9-4954 Filed 3-6-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-61-P
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-18-00291-CV

_________________

$12,537.00 U.S. CURRENCY (JOSEPH ALLAN EDWARDS), Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 410th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 16-02-02059-CV

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court signed a final judgment on June 26, 2018. Joseph Allan 

Edwards filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a brief. On November 8, 2018, we 

notified the parties that the brief had not been filed and that the appeal would be 

submitted without briefs unless we received the brief and motion for extension 

within ten days. Our notice warned Edwards that his failure to file a brief could result 

in a dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. On November 20, 2018, we 
2

notified the parties that the appeal would be submitted to the Court on December 11,

2018, without briefs and without oral argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8.

In the absence of a brief assigning error for appellate review, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on December 11, 2018

Opinion Delivered December 20, 2018

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
No. 09-9548.

#### Edwin D. Calligan, Petitioner v. Bill K. Wilson, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison.

560 U.S. 909, 130 S. Ct. 3283,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1192,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3952.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(a)

                                  CERTIFICATION

      In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K (the
"Report") of Lindsay Manufacturing Co. (the "Company") for the year ended August
31, 2004, I, Richard W. Parod, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I,
David B. Downing, Chief Financial Officer of 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, to my knowledge, 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/ RICHARD W. PAROD
      --------------------
      President and Chief Executive Officer
      Richard W. Parod

      /s/ DAVID B. DOWNING
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
      David B. Downing

      November 15, 2004

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5024 

To require annual oral testimony before the Financial Services Committee 

of the Chairperson or a designee of the Chairperson of the Securities 

and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, 

and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, relating to their 

efforts to promote transparency in financial reporting. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2006 

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, and Mr. ISRAEL) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require annual oral testimony before the Financial Services Committee of the Chairperson or a designee of the 

Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 

the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, relating to 

their efforts to promote transparency in financial reporting. 

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


HMOORE on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 5024 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Promoting Trans3 parency in Financial Reporting Act of 2006’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

5 Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) Transparent and clear financial reporting is 

7 integral to the continued growth and strength of our 

8 capital markets and the confidence of investors. 

9 (2) The increasing detail and volume of ac10 counting, auditing, and reporting guidance pose a 

11 major challenge to the quality and transparency of 

12 financial reporting. 

13 (3) The complexity of accounting and auditing 

14 standards in the United States has added to the 

15 costs and effort involved in financial reporting. 

16 SEC. 3. ANNUAL TESTIMONY ON REDUCING COMPLEXITY IN 

17 FINANCIAL REPORTING. 

18 The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Fi19 nancial Accounting Standards Board, and the Public 

20 Company Accounting Oversight Board shall annually pro21 vide oral testimony by their respective Chairpersons or a 

22 designee of the Chairperson, beginning in 2007, and for 

23 5 years thereafter, to the Committee on Financial Services 

24 of the House of Representatives on their efforts to reduce 

25 the complexity in financial reporting to provide more accuVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:56 Mar 29, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5024.IH H5024

HMOORE on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HR 5024 IH 

1 rate and clear financial information to investors, includ2 ing— 

3 (1) reassessing complex and outdated account4 ing standards; 

5 (2) improving the understandability, consist6 ency, and overall usability of the existing accounting 

7 and auditing literature; 

8 (3) developing principles-based accounting 

9 standards; 

10 (4) encouraging the use and acceptance of 

11 interactive data; and 

12 (5) promoting disclosures in ‘‘plain English’’. 

Æ 


HMOORE on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

WRITTEN STATEMENT 

PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 

 

The undersigned, Richard A. Meier, the Chief Financial Officer of Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies to the best of his knowledge that: 

 

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and 

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company. 

 

Dated: August 1, 2003 

 

/s/    RICHARD A.MEIER                

Richard A.Meier, 

Corporate Vice President and 

Chief Financial Officer 

 

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. and will be retained by Advanced Medical Optics,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00857-CR

Charles D. WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR5580B

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 4, 2013.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
No. 09-7322.

#### Michael T. Grubert, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1009, 130 S. Ct. 1880,

176 L. Ed. 2d 369,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2583.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 339 Fed. Appx. 406.