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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40910

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DAMENIEL PRESTON OWENS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 536

Filed: May 30, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Melissa Moody, District Judge. 

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, 

affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Dameniel Preston Owens pled guilty to grand theft. Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 

18-2407(1)(b). The district court sentenced Owens to a unified term of fourteen years, with three 

years determinate. Subsequently, Owens filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for a reduction 

of his sentence, which the district court denied. Owens appeals, contending the district court 

abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 
2

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including the new information submitted with Owens’ Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Owens’ 

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10908-10909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Filing

March 6, 2009.

BC Landfill Energy, LLC..................  ER09-503-000
AC Landfill Energy, LLC..................  ER09-504-000
WC Landfill Energy, LLC..................  ER09-505-000
 

    Take notice that, on March 5, 2009, BC Landfill Energy, LLC, AC 
Landfill Energy, LLC, and WC Landfill Energy, LLC filed an amendment to 
their January 7, 2009 applications for market-based rate authority in 
the above-captioned dockets, pursuant to the Commissions' request. Such 
filing serves to reset the filing dates in these proceedings.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dc9a998e9f93b2b0b5b2b98fa9acacb3aea89cbab9aebff2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="51171403121e3f3d383f34022421213e232511373423327f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

[[Page 10909]]

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 16, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5430 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Natalie A. PERRY, Appellant.

WD 80397

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: April 17, 2018

Amanda Langenheim, Kansas City for appellant.

Dora Fichter, Jefferson City for respondent.

Before Special Division: Zel M. Fischer, P.J., and Karen King Mitchell and Alok Ahuja, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

*326Following a jury trial, Natalie A. Perry was convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County of one count of forgery in violation of § 570.090, RSMo., for using a forged check at a grocery store in Raytown. Perry was sentenced to six months in the county jail, and a fine of $25. She appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                                                                       Percentage
                                                                                          of
 Parent (at Decmeber 31, 1999)                 Subsidiary                              Ownership
-------------------------------    -------------------------------------------         ----------
<S>                                 <C>                                                <C>
Bay View Capital Corporation        Bay View Bank, N.A.                                   100%
Bay View Capital Corporation        Bay View Securitization Corporation                   100%
Bay View Capital Corporation        FMAC Insurance Services/1/                            100%
Bay View Capital Corporation        Bay View Capital I                                    100%
Bay View Bank, N.A.                 Bay View Commercial Finance Group/2/                  100%
Bay View Bank, N.A.                 Bay View Acceptance Corporation                       100%
Bay View Bank, N.A.                 Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Corporation/3/          100%
Bay View Bank, N.A.                 Bankers Mutual/4/                                     100%
Bay View Bank, N.A.                 MoneyCare, Inc.                                       100%
Bay View Bank, N.A.                 Bay View Auxiliary Corporation                        100%
Bay View Acceptance Corporation     Bay View Commercial Leasing                           100%
Bay View Acceptance Corporation     LFS-BV, Inc.                                          100%
</TABLE>

(1)FMAC Insurance Services became a subsidiary of Bay View Capital Corporation
effective November 1, 1999.
(2)Bay View Commercial Finance Group became a subsidiary of Bay View Bank, N.A.
effective March 1, 1999. Prior to March 1, 1999, Bay View Commercial Finance
Group was a subsidiary of Bay View Capital Corporation.
(3)Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Corporation became a subsidiary of Bay View
Bank, N.A. effective Novemeber 1, 1999.
(4)Bankers Mutual became a subsidiary of Bay View Bank, N.A. effective November
1, 1999.


The financial statements of the Registrant are consolidated with those of its
subsidiaries.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of UnitedWisconsin Grain Producers, LLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Barb Bontrager, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Barb Bontrager           |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Barb  Bontrager              |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer     |
|   | Dated:  August 15, 2005 |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

                              PACIFIC STATE BANCORP

                            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 Pacific State Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his
knowledge, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
            15 (d) of the Securities and 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: November 14, 2007

                                        /s/ Steven A. Rosso
                                        -----------------------
                                        Steven A. Rosso
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       34
CHARLESTON.

#### Town of Cass *v.*C. P. Hamrick

Submitted March 13, 1923.

Decided June 19, 1923.

Municipal *-Corporations*— Warrant *Charging Violation of Ordinance Prohibiting Operator of Pool Table to Permit any Other Game Commonly Known as Baseball Pool Held Defective.*

*A*warrant charging the defendant with violation of a municipal ordinance which makes it an offense for the owner or operator of a pool table to permit any other person to play the game commonly known as base-ball pool, is defective for failing to allege that the defendant was the owner or operator of a pool table; and such warrant should be quashed on motion.

Error to Circuit, Pocahontas County.

C. P. Hamrick was convicted of the violation of an ordinance prohibiting the owner or operator of pool table from permitting any other person to play the game commonly known as baseball pool, and he brings error.

*Reversed.*

*W. B. & E. L. Maxwell*and H. *S. Rucker,*for plaintiff in error.

Litz, Judge :

The defendant was tried and convicted before the mayor of the town of Cass on a warrant issued by said mayor, March 3d, 1922, charging that ‘1 on the .... day of. 1922, in the county of Pocahontas, State of West Virginia, town of Cass, C. P. Hamrick (the defendant) did violate Ordinance No-.! 2 known as the Base Ball Pool ordinance, wherein the said C. P. Hamrick *'permit*persons to play at the game known as base ball pool, in violation of said ordinance.” The ordinance in question prohibits an owner or operator of a pool room from permitting “any other person to play the game commonly known as base ball pool.”

On appeal from this conviction to the circuit court of *300Pocahontas county, the defendant was convicted by a jury April 8th, 1922. The court entered judgment against him on the jury’s verdict, April 17th, 1922, for $25.00 fine and costs. From that judgment he prosecutes this writ of error.

At the trial in the circuit court the defendant moved to quash the warrant on the ground, among others, that it failed to allege, in conformity to the ordinance, that he was the owner or operator of a pool table. Error is assigned to the overruling of this motion and to certain other rulings of the court.

We are of opinion that the warrant was defective in the particular specified; and, as it is too late for the issuance of a new warrant, the statute of limitation having run before the submission of the case to this Court, we deem it unnecessary to consider other assignments, involving omission in the warrant and ordinance to define the game, and power of the municipality to declare it a crime.

The judgment of the circuit court will, therefore, be reversed, the motion to quash the warrant sustained, and the defendant discharged.

*Reversed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
33-30602, 33-30603, 33-36161, 33-41924, 33-41926, 33-95724, 33-95726,
333-37027, 333-37029, 333-37031, 333-92637, 333-70372 and 333-70362 on Form S-8
and in Registration Statements Nos. 333-29757 and 333-64877 on Form S-3 of Bay
View Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries of our report dated March 12, 2004,
August 13, 2004, as to Note 3 relating to the 2003 and 2002 consolidated
financial statements of Bay View Capital Corporation and (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating
to (i) changes in the basis of accounting on September 30, 2002 and on October
1, 2003, (ii) the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
142, (iii) the application of procedures relating to certain disclosures of
financial statement amounts related to the 2001 consolidated financial
statements that were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations and
for which we have expressed no opinion or other form of assurance other than
with respect to such disclosures; and (iv) the restatement described in Note 3)
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Bay View Capital Corporation
and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

San Francisco, California
August 13, 2004
Description of Benefits for UAL Corporation Directors



 Exhibit 10.26 
 Description of Compensation and Benefits for Directors 
 Cash
Compensation of Non-employee Directors. Non-employee directors receive a $20,000 annual retainer, $1,000 per meeting attended, and $10,000 per year for chairing certain Board committees (other than the Audit and Human Resources Committees). The
Chair of the Audit Committee receives $20,000 per year, the Chair of the Human Resources Committee receives $15,000 per year and the Lead Director receives $25,000 per year as a retainer fee. 
 Travel Benefits for Directors. Generally, directors, their spouses or enrolled friends and their dependent children/stepchildren are entitled to
complimentary positive space travel on United Airlines and United Express for pleasure or UAL business travel, and will be reimbursed annually for the income tax liability incurred in using this benefit. 
 Enhanced Travel Benefit. In addition, each non-employee director is entitled to ten roundtrip first class tickets each year for complimentary
positive space travel that may be distributed to family and non-family members or donated to charity. Directors are not reimbursed for the income tax liability associated with this benefit. 
 Nonprofit Grant Program. The Company will provide support to non-profit organizations to which a Board member makes a personal commitment in the
amount of $20,000 per year. In the case of each of the ALPA and IAM director, the Company will provide support to organizations to which the director or their respective union contributes up to $20,000 per year in the aggregate. 
 Complimentary Cargo Carriage Policy for Directors. After one year of service on the Board, or currently an employee in good standing and having been
employed by United for at least one year, directors receive complimentary cargo carriage (excluding ground transportation) for personal goods on United Airlines, for up to 2,500 pounds per year, and are reimbursed for the related income tax
liability. 
 Stock Based Compensation of Non-employee Directors. Under the UAL Corporation 2006 Director Equity Incentive Plan,
non-employee directors may receive awards in the form of UAL common stock, restricted stock, stock options, stock appreciation rights and/or deferred stock units representing the right to receive UAL stock in the future. In addition, the Plan
permits non-employee directors to elect, for tax purposes, to defer receipt of compensation through deferred stock units representing the right to receive UAL stock in the future. 
 Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Insurance and Indemnification. The Company has a policy which provides liability insurance for directors and officers of UAL and its subsidiaries. The
Company also provides indemnification for directors as set forth in the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of UAL Corporation.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick Ward, President, CFO and director of Sinewire Networks, Inc., certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sinewire Networks, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 23, 2004

/s/ Patrick Ward				Patrick Ward
President, CFO and Director
(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer 
and Principal Accounting Officer)
SCWC-17-0000667

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

JOHN Y. SUZUKI AND LOLA L. SUZUKI,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

JOHN MOWRY dba TOWN & COUNTRY BUILDERS, LLC,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-17-0000667; CIV. NO. 1RC17-1-3158)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Application for 

Writ of Certiorari, deemed filed on January 29, 2021, is hereby 

rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 23, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000667

23-MAR-2021

07:48 AM

Dkt. 15 ODAC
STATE v. Travis KINGSBERRY

86P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, For Kingsberry, Travis

John P. Barkley, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina

Michael D. Waters, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of March 2019 by State of NC to Dismiss Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Bay View Capital Corporation listed below of our report dated January 26, 1998,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bay View Capital Corporation for
the year ended December 31, 1997:

Registration Statement No. 33-30602 on Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 33-30603 on Form S-8
Post-effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-35483 on
  Form S-3
Post-effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-32416 on
  Form S-3
Registration Statement No. 33-36161 on Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 33-41924 on Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 33-95724 on Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 33-95726 on Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 33-37027 on Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 33-37029 on Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 33-37031 on Form S-8
Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-29757 on Form S-3


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

San Francisco, California
March 30, 1998