alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39748

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

ANTHONY WAYNE WALKER ,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 682

Filed: October 19, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourt h Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Thomas F. Neville , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate unified sentences of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years , for two counts of grand theft by possession of stolen property

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ian H. Thomson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boi se, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Anthony Wayne Walker pled guilty to two counts of grand theft by possession of stolen

property . Idaho Code §§ 18

- 2403(4), 18

- 2407(1)(b)

. On the first count, t he district court

sentenced Walker to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three

years , to run concurrently with Walker’s existing sentences for burglary . As to the second count,

the district court imposed a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period o f confinement of

one year, to ru n consecutive to the sentence on the first count and concurrent with Walker’s

existing burglary sentences. The aggregate sentences imposed were twenty years with four years2 determinate to run concurrently with Walker’s existing burglary sentences. Walker appeals

asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Walke r ’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
Darius Cornelius FORD v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-01498-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: December 13, 2017 Closed: February 1, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition For Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Dismissed.
Octavius McArthur PULLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-3806

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Alpichon LAVALAIS, et al. v. The SCHUMACHER GROUP OF LOUISIANA, INC., et al.

NO. 2018-CC-0111

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 9, 2018

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

CLARK, J., would grant.
Ruth REINKE, individually, and on behalf of B.T.R., a minor child, Appellant, v. Thomas REINKE, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2979

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 10.16
 JOINT SERVICES AGREEMENT
 st
  JMG EXPLORATION, INC.  (JMG)
   JED OIL INC.  (JED)
    1. Services
  Consideration
  Term and Termination
  Amendments
  Assignment




---



##### 



Arbitration
  Jurisdiction
  Enurement
   JMG EXPLORATION, INC.
    
    
    
    JED OIL INC.Per:
    

/s/ Herman S. Hartley
    
    Per:
    
    /s/
Thomas J. JacobsenHerman S. Hartley, President/CEO
    
    
    
    Thomas J. Jacobsen, CEOPer:
    

/s/ Joanne R. Finnerty
    
    Per:
    

/s/
Bruce StewartJoanne R. Finnerty, Secretary/CFO
    
    
    
    Bruce Stewart, CFO
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 1, 2022

No. 04-22-00726-CV

IN RE Maria GONZALEZ, Eliseo Gonzalez, Lucy Harvest, Scott Grice, Miriam Grice and 

Democrats Abroad

Original Proceeding1

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On October 31, 2022, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus containing a request 

for immediate emergency relief. After considering the petition and this record, this court 

concludes relators are not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Relators’ request for emergency relief is 

DENIED as moot.

It is so ORDERED on November 1, 2022.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1 day of November, 2022.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of relators’ federal postcard application complaint against Bexar County Election 

Officials. See TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. § 273.061(a) (“[A] court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus to compel 

the performance of any duty imposed by law in connection with the holding of an election or a political party 

convention, regardless of whether the person responsible for performing the duty is a public officer.”).
STATE of Louisiana v. Phillip SCHANE

No. 2017-KP-0582

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 6, 2018

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. In light of the Supreme Court's holding in *Montgomery v. Louisiana* , 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016) that *Miller v. Alabama* , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) announced a substantive rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively, we hereby vacate relator's sentence and remand to the 16th Judicial District Court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in *State v. Montgomery* , 13-1163 (La. 6/28/16), 194 So.3d 606, and for resentencing pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1.

After he is resentenced, that judgment of sentence is included by statute among those which a defendant may appeal. *See* La.C.Cr.P. art. 912(C)(1). Furthermore, although this court originally had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over this pre-1982 felony conviction, *see* La.Const. art. V, § 5 (E), after the resentencing to which relator is now entitled, appellate jurisdiction for purposes of any review of his new sentence will vest in the intermediate court of appeal. *See* La.Const. art. V, § 10 (eff. July 1, 1982, "[A] court of appeal has appellate jurisdiction of ... all criminal cases triable by a jury," except when a law has been declared unconstitutional or when the death penalty has been imposed); *see, e.g.,**State ex rel. Hudson v. State* , 16-1731 (La. 1/9/17), 208 So.3d 882.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                        520
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              520
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         346,349
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      17310
<OTHER-SE>                    (363,139)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  0
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              54,144
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (54,144)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (54,144)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (54,144)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.031)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7141]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,201]


Toho Tenax America, Inc.; Rockwood, TN; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 10, 2009 in response to a 
worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of 
Toho Tenax America, Inc., Rockwood, Tennessee.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of March 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-7141 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 31.2RULE 13a-14(a) / 15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONI, Daniel D. Viren, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of R. G. BarryCorporation for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2006; and2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.    Date:August 18, 2006 /s/ Daniel D. Viren     Printed Name: Daniel D. Viren  Title: Senior Vice President – Finance, Chief Financial Officerand Secretary  (Principal Financial Officer)
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADDED BY**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of QNB Corp. (the Corporation)
      for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the Report), I, Bret H. Krevolin, Chief Financial Officer, of the
      Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this periodic report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Corporation.


Date: August
              9, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Bret
              H.
              KrevolinName:  
                Bret H. Krevolin
              Title:    
                Chief Financial Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906 has been provided to QNB Corp. and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
Exhibit 32.2
**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**
     In connection with the quarterly report of Landmark Land Company, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joe V. Olree, Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.   May 12, 2005 /s/ JOE V. OLREE   Joe V. Olree Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Landmark Land Company, Inc.
Cedrick BRANTLEY, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D17-1268

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 17, 2018

Cedrick Brantley, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Gayla Grant, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

Rowe, Ray, and Makar, JJ., concur.
|   | (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 Winland. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       | Winland Electronics, Inc. |                                  |
|----------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                       |                      |                                  |   |
| Date:  April 30, 2010 | By:                       | /s/ Thomas J. de Petra           |   |
|                       |                      | Thomas J. de Petra                    |   |
|                       |                      | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                       |                      |                                  |   |
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.3
 AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO
CREDIT AGREEMENT
     Certain Definitions
 Term Advance Maturity Date Change
 Miscellaneous




---



##### 



M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank
    
    Winland Electronics, Inc.By
    
    /s/ Doug Pudvah
    
    By
    
    /s/ Jennifer A. ThompsonDoug Pudvah
    
    
    
    Jennifer A. ThompsonIts Vice President
    
    
    
    Its Chief Financial OfficerBy
    
    /s/ John W. Howard, Jr.John W. HowardIts Senior Vice President
 - 2 -
Miguel ROBINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2740

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1051 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1051

    To amend title 5, United States Code, to lower the standard for 
    removing employees who disclose tax return information without 
                 authorization, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2023

   Mr. Braun introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 5, United States Code, to lower the standard for 
    removing employees who disclose tax return information without 
                 authorization, 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 ``Protect Taxpayers' Privacy Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE OF PENALTY FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF TAXPAYER 
              INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7213(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting 
``$250,000''.
    (b) Disclosures by Tax Return Preparers.--Subsection (a) of section 
7216 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
``$1,000 ($100,000 in the case of a disclosure or use to which section 
6713(b) applies)'' and inserting ``$250,000''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to disclosures made on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL.

    (a) In General.--Section 7701(c)(1)(A) of title 5, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting ``or in the case of an action involving a 
removal from the service for an alleged violation of section 7213(a)(1) 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,'' after ``described in section 
4303,''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
may not be construed to permit an officer or employee of the United 
States to submit an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board if 
that individual is dismissed from office or discharged from employment 
upon conviction for a violation of section 7213(a)(1) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. UNDER SEAL, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7339.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 27, 2004.

Decided: May 28, 2004.

Under Seal, Petitioner pro se.

Lynne Ann Battaglia, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his recharacterized128 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a *453§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To obtain a certificate of appealability on a claim the district court denied on procedural grounds, Appellant must also show “‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). Upon review of the materials before the court, we conclude that Appellant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*

1

. We note that Appellant’s motion remained pending in the district court for 20 months after the district court issued its order recharacterizing the motion without an attempt to withdraw the motion by Appellant, and that Appellant referred to his motion as the "Re-characterize[d] 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion” when he supplemented it with additional materials.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Silver Falcon Mining, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:



1.     The Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 (the "Report") of the Company complies in all material respects with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.     The information contained in the Amended Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Pierre Quilliam



Pierre Quilliam,

Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)



Date:  April 1, 2011
Derrick Leonard YOUNG, DOC #483856, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15--1354

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
AMENDED AND RESTATED  EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
     Employment
 Term of Employment
 Position and Duties
 Position
 Duties
 Compensation and Related Matters
 Salary
 Expenses
 1




---



##### 



Other Benefits
     Termination
 Termination of Employment Other Than by Executive
 Death
 Disability
 Cause
    2




---



##### 



Termination of Employment by Executive
      Notice of Termination
 Date of Termination
 Compensation Upon Termination or During Disability
 Disability
 Death
 Termination for Cause
 3




---



##### 



Termination for Good Reason or Without Cause
     Voluntary Termination by Executive Without Good Reason
 Mitigation Not Required
 Non-Competition; Confidentiality
 Period
 Competition with the Company
 Interpretation of Covenant
 4




---



##### 



Prohibition on Disclosure or Use
 Definition of Confidential Information
 Equitable Relief
 Definition of Change of Control
 Waiver
 Successors; Binding Agreement
  5




---



##### 



Arbitration
 Notices
 Miscellaneous
 Validity
 Prior Agreements
 Compliance with Section 409A of the Code
 6




---



##### 



R. G. BARRY CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ José G. IbarraTitle:
    Senior Vice President  Treasurer/s/ Daniel D. VirenDaniel D. Viren 7
E.F., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2428

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
N. B., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1744

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.