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2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 682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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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 Fourth 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, Boise, 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, the 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 of confinement of 

one year, to run 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 years 
2

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 114, 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, Walker’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
# Official Journal C 257/7 Au

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 257 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 577 August 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 257

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 577 August 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 257/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — sixth supplement to the 32nd complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 257/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — sixth supplement to the 32nd complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Carter BRYANT, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-809

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through March 15, 2011.

For information, contact Hazel Dean, Sc.D., M.P.H., Executive Secretary, Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis, Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E-10, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 404/639-8000 or fax 404/639-8600.

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Dated: March 31, 2009.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E9-8072 Filed 4-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Exhibit 10.51
 Las Vegas Sands Corp.
2004 EQUITY AWARD PLAN
 NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 Agreement Date of Grant Company Participant
 R E C I T A L S:
 Plan
 Committee
  Grant of Option
 Option Option Shares
 Incorporation by Reference, Etc.




---



##### 



Terms and Conditions
 Option Price
 Expiration Date Option Period
 Exercisability of the Option
  provided
 Effect of Termination of Employment or Services
 Death/Disability
  2




---



##### 



Termination Other than due to Death/Disability or for Cause
 Termination for Cause
 Status as Employee or Consultant
 Compliance with Legal Requirements
 Transferability
 Rights as Stockholder
  3




---



##### 



Tax Withholding provided
 Miscellaneous
 Notices
  
   Severability
 No Rights to Employment
 Bound by Plan
  4




---



##### 



Beneficiary
 Successors
 Entire Agreement; Effect of Employment Agreement, etc.; Amendment.
 GOVERNING LAW
 JURY TRIAL WAIVER
 Headings
  5




---



##### 



Signature in Counterparts
  Las Vegas Sands Corp.By:Name:Title:[type in name of participant]
  6
Martha WALKER, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee FOR AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-RS, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5623

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7986
KARL X. BELFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. C. MORRIS, Deputy Director; L. KELLY, Assistant Warden, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-692-2) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karl X. Belfield, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom , 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court's order. 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.

AFFIRMED
SAFE AIR TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. Gerald CHRISTIE

NO. 2017-C-1979

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 9, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______ _________________
No. 16

- 11573 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:14

- cv

- 00966

- RDP

GINA MAREA PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

JAMES BR OWNE,

D efendant

- Appellant,

JOHN MARK TIREY, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the No rthern District of Alabama

________________________ (October 19, 2016) Case: 16-11573 Date Filed: 10/19/2016 Page: 1 of 22 Before TJOFLAT
, HULL, and MAR CUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jim Brown e , a law enforcement officer, appeals the District Court’s March

9, 2016, order denying his motion for summary judgment

--- based on the defense of

qualified immunity

--- on Gina Marea Phillips’s claims of excessive force and

unlawful seizure brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 33. After reading the

parties’ briefs and the record before the District Court, we find no basis for

disturbing the Court ’s order.

AFFIRMED. Case: 16-11573 Date Filed: 10/19/2016 Page: 2 of 2
Anthony DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2248

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Michael Dennis DEMBRO, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4062

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX-10.6


  Exhibit 10.6

  Donnelley Financial Solutions, Inc.
Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan

  Effective as of December 16, 2021  

  Each director shall receive (A) an annual cash retainer (a “Cash Retainer”) and (B) an annual equity retainer (an “Equity Retainer”) to be paid in the form of a grant of Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) each on the date of the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders, as described further below and pursuant to the Company’s Performance Incentive Plan in effect on such date (the “Plan”).   

  1)Cash Retainer.  


  a)Each director shall be entitled to a Cash Retainer equal to $80,000.


  b)Any director in a leadership role shall be entitled to an additional Cash Retainer in the applicable amount described in the table below:  


   

  		
	Chairman of the Board
	$50,000

	Chairman of the Audit Committee
	$25,000

	Chairman of the Compensation Committee
	$25,000

	Chairman of the Corporate Responsibility & Governance Committee
	$20,000



  c)Any director serving on more than one committee shall be entitled to an additional Cash Retainer of $5,000 for each additional committee.


   

  2)Equity Retainer.


  a)Each director shall be entitled to an Equity Retainer equal to $175,000.


  b)The Chairman of the Board shall be entitled to an additional Equity Retainer equal to $50,000.    


  c)The number of shares granted shall be calculated pursuant to the terms of the Plan and shall be rounded down to the nearest share.


  d)RSUs will vest and be payable on the first anniversary of the grant date, but will be payable in full on the earlier of (i) the date the director ceases to be a Director of the Company and (ii) a Change in Control (as defined in the Plan). 


  e)Dividend equivalents on the RSUs issued hereunder are deferred, credited with interest quarterly at the same rate as five-year U.S. government bonds and paid out in cash at the same time the corresponding portion of the award becomes payable. 


  f)The Company shall make payment of the RSUs in Company common stock. 


  g)Directors may defer payment of the RSUs in accordance with procedures specified by the Company.


   

  3)General.


  a)If any director joins the Board on a date other than the date of the Company’s Annual Meeting, then a pro-rata portion of each of the applicable Cash Retainer and Equity Retainer from the date joined to the next Annual Meeting date shall be granted; provided, however, that any director of R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (“RRD”) who joins the Board in connection with the spin-off of the Company from RRD shall not be entitled to such pro-rata portion of the Cash Retainer or Equity Retainer. 


  b)Each director is expected to comply with the terms of any stock ownership guidelines for non-employee directors that are established by the Company, as in effect from time to time.
----

----

| To:    | United States Securities and Exchange Commission        |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                    |   |
| Re:    | Great Panther Silver Limited(the “Company”) |   |
|   | Annual Report on Form 40-F                              |   |
|   | Consent of Expert                                       |   |

| ·   | the use of my name in connection with my involvement in the preparation of the technical reports entitled NI43-101 Report on the Guanajuato Mine Complex Mineral Resource Estimation for the Guanajuatito, Valenciana, Cata, Los Pozos, Santa Margarita, San Cayetano & Promontorio Zones, as of July 31st, 2013 and dated November 26, 2013, and the NI43-101 Report on the El Horcon Project Mineral Resource Estimation for the Diamantillo, Diamantillo HW, Natividad, & San Guillermo Zones as of August 31st, 2013, and dated September 26, 2013 (the “Technical Reports”); |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | references to the Technical Reports, or portions thereof, in the Annual Information Form and the MD&A; |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the information derived from the Technical Reports in the Annual Report and the MD&A.; and |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | my identification as a “qualified person” responsible for certain other disclosure of a technical or scientific nature in the Annual Information Form and the MD&A. |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated the 7th day of March, 2014 |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|

----

----
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3025-3026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01061]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 19, 2017, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Interchangeable Virtual 
Instruments Foundation, Inc. (``IVI Foundation'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ThinkRF, Kanata, 
CANADA, has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned

[[Page 3026]]

activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and IVI Foundation intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 29, 2001, IVI Foundation filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on July 30, 2001 (66 FR 39336).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 15, 
2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on January 11, 2017 (82 FR 3361).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-01061 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
# Amtsblatt C 34I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-088X |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 034I |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 64. Jahrgang1. Februar 2021 |

ISSN 1977-088X

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 034I

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

64. Jahrgang1. Februar 2021

---

| Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Bekanntmachungen |
| | VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN |
| | Europäische Investitionsbank |
| 2021/C 34 I/01 | SIT 2021 — Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen — Ideen, die die Welt verändern: EIBI-Wettbewerb 2021 für soziale Innovation | 1 |

Inhalt

Seite

V   Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Europäische Investitionsbank

2021/C 34 I/01

SIT 2021 — Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen — Ideen, die die Welt verändern: EIBI-Wettbewerb 2021 für soziale Innovation

1

---

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE

---

V Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Europäische Investitionsbank

| 1.2.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CI 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CI 34/1

---

SIT 2021 — Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen

Ideen, die die Welt verändern: EIBI-Wettbewerb 2021 für soziale Innovation

(2021/C 34 I/01)

EIB-Institut organisiert zehnten Wettbewerb für soziale Innovation

Der Wettbewerb soll innovative Ideen fördern und Initiativen auszeichnen, die einen Nutzen für Gesellschaft und Umwelt bewirken. Das Spektrum reicht von Bildung, Gesundheit und Beschäftigung bis hin zu neuen Technologien, Systemen und Prozessen. Aus allen Projekten werden in einer allgemeinen Kategorie die beiden besten ausgewählt. Die zwei Preise der Sonderkategorie gehen dieses Jahr an Projekte, die sich mit nachhaltigen Lebensweisen befassen. Zum zehnten Jubiläum des Wettbewerbs werden in beiden Kategorien ein erster und ein zweiter Preis von 75 000 EUR und 30 000 EUR vergeben. Außerdem gibt es einen Publikumspreis von 10 000 EUR.

Folgen Sie uns auf Facebook: www.facebook.com/EibInstitute

Weitere Informationen über diesen Wettbewerb und über die Einreichung von Projekten finden Sie unter: http://institute.eib.org/programmes/social/social-innovation-tournament/

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Wilson MATUTE-PINEDA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-10466.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 14, 2004.

Anne E. Mosher, Esq., Christina M. Cabanillas, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. DeConcini U.S., Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Enrique R. Gonzales, Nogales, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Wilson Matute-Pineda appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sen*149tence for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Matute-Pineda has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Matute-Pineda has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief. We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Keith Bech ur n Taylor , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00233

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 124th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 49011

- B ). Panel consists of Chief Justice Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Rambin

.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find there was partial error in the bill of
costs and judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the bill of costs by striking the following costs totaling $1,250.00: (1) Attorney Fee

- $425.00 , (2) DC

- Time Payment Fee

- $25.00 , and (3) Fine

- $800.00 . We also modify the trial court’s judgment as follows: (1) “ Reimbursement Fees: $ 850.00 ” changed to “ Reimbursement Fees: $ 425.00 ,” (2) “ Fines: $ 850.00 ” changed to “ Fines: $ 0.00 ,” and (3) “ Plea to Motion to Adjudicate: TRUE ” changed to

“ Plea to Motion to Adjudicate: NOT TRUE TO ALLEGATION 1; TRUE TO
ALLEGATION 2 .” As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, Keith Bech ur n Taylor , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 5 , 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT - 32.1

                                  WESTBRIDGE RESEARCH GROUP

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Westbridge Research Group (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 29, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christine
Koenemann, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/Christine Koenemann
--------------------------------
Christine Koenemann
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
April 22, 2004