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

Docket No. 37114

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

SEAN ANDREW

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opinion No

. 535

Filed: June 29, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Id aho, Gem County. Hon. Juneal C. Kerrick , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years , for aggravated battery

, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney Genera l; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Sean Andrew pled guilty to aggravat ed battery . I.C. § 18

- 907

. In exchange for his guilty

plea, the state dismissed an allegation that Andrew was a persistent violator. The district court

sentenced Andrew to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of

five years , to run consecutive to an unrelated sentence

. Andrew appeals.

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 reviewing2

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, An drew ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Cave climate

Filters

              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(4)
              - (-)california(3)
              - colorado(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - iowa(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - montana(3)
              - oregon(1)
              - south dakota(8)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(2)
              - utah(3)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        September 26, 2019        PubTalk 09/2019 — Bats in the West

Photography        June 1, 2016        USGS Research Ecologist Jeff Lovich gets ready to release a male desert tortoise

Presentations and Events        July 26, 2018        PubTalk 7/2018— Extreme acid mine drainage at Iron Mountain California
1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1813

___________

John Reed, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Home Depot USA, Inc., a Delaware *

corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2004

Filed: December 10, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Reed appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment in

his Title VII employment-discrimination action against Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.

(Home Depot). Reed, an African American, alleged Home Depot failed to promote

him based on his race.
2

The Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Minnesota. 

-2-

Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that Reed failed to

establish a prima facie failure-to-promote case. Among other things, he adduced no

evidence that he had registered his interest for the promotions at issue in the

computer-based Job Performance Program, as was required to be considered for those

promotions. See Younts v. Fremont County, Iowa., 370 F.3d 748, 754 (8th Cir. 2004)

(elements of prima facie case of failure to promote); Wheeler v. Aventis Pharm., 360

F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). Also, we reject Reed’s

suggestions on appeal concerning judicial bias. Finally, we decline to consider

Reed’s challenge to a magistrate judge’s2

 denial of leave to amend to add new claims.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
Case 20-11553-AJC Doc 47 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 20-11553-AJC Doc 47 Filed 07/14/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 20-11553-AJC Doc 47 Filed 07/14/20 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 99.1


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 Annual Report of Total Entertainment, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Sandy J. Masselli, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                       /s/ SANDY J. MASSELLI, JR.
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Sandy J. Masselli, Jr.

July 30, 2003
Gary CARROLL, DOC #805289 Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4573

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly report of GeoPharma, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Mihir K. Taneja, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



/s/ Mihir K. TanejaMihir K. Taneja Chief Executive Officer August 15, 2005
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [EPA-R04-OW-2008-0179;FRL-8543-7]

      ( print page 18332)    

### Correction

In notice document E8-5401 beginning on page 14806, in the issue of Wednesday, March 19, 2008, make the following correction:

On page 14815, footnote 22 is missing and is corrected to read:

22                 EPA, 2008. Synopsis of Yazoo Backwater Area Hydrology. Wetlands Regulatory Section, Water Management Division, EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA.            

[FR Doc. Z8-5401 Filed 4-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 2079

ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JANE DOE, by and through her mother and natural Guardian ad Litem, Mary Roe; MARY ROE, individually , Defendants

- Appellants , and
ROSE WADFORD HUNTER , Defendant

.

No. 19
- 1180

ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JANE DOE, by and through her mother and natural Guardian ad Litem, Mary Roe; MARY ROE, individually , Defendants

- Appellants , and2 ROSE WADFORD HUNTER , Defendant

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 9:17

- cv
- 00384

- DCN )

Submitted : January 17, 2020 Decided: January 30, 2020

Before WYNN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, S enior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Aaron E. Edwards, Lawrence E. Richter, Jr., THE RICHTER FIRM, LLC, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant s
. A. Johnston Cox, Janice Holmes, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Mary Roe and Jane Doe (collectively, “Roe/Doe”) appeal the district court’s order s granting summary judgment to Allstate Vehicle and Property Insur ance Company (“Allstate”)

. The district court concluded that Allstate had no duty to defend or indemnify Roe/Doe’s claims against Joseph Stephen Hunter, Sr., who allegedly sexually abused Jane Doe for nearly 10 years, and Rose Wadford Hunter, who Roe/Doe claim knew of and failed to prevent the abuse. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Roe/Doe do not dispute the district court’s findings as to Joseph Hunter; they challenge only the court’s grant of summary judgment on thei r negligence , breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation claims against Rose Hunter. The district court properly accepted Roe/Doe’s factual allegations from the underlying state complaint and granted summary judgment applying settled state law. T he court a lso correctly held that Allstate
had no duty to defend and indemnify Roe/Doe’s defamation claims against Rose Hunter, since Roe/Doe themselves alleged that Rose Hunter’s actions were intentional. See
Miller v. Fid.

- Phx. Ins. Co. , 231 S.E.2d 701, 702 (S.C. 1977) . Finally, the district court correctly held that Allstate had no duty to defend and indemnify Roe/Doe’s negligence claims against Rose Hunter, based on the South Carolina Supreme Court’s conclusion that “the Hunter policy unambiguously denies coverage to Rose Hunter where Joseph Hunter has been barred from coverage.” Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Hunter , 821 S.E.2d 493, 494 (S.C. 2018) (alterations omitted )

.4 Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s orders

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Torrey Dewayne WALKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1773

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Stephen Douglas KENT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Chad CHRONISTER, as Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4471

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 04, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95219-95220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28206]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2024-N-1636]

Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease 
Product; KEBILIDI (eladocagene exuparvovec-tneq)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare 
pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review 
vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product 
applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish 
notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined 
that KEBILIDI (eladocagene exuparvovec-tneq), approved on November 13, 
2024, manufactured by PTC Therapeutics Inc., meets the criteria for a 
priority review voucher.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Hanna, Center for Biologics 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority 
review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease 
product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
360ff), FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved 
rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. 
FDA has determined that KEBILIDI (eladocagene exuparvovec-tneq), 
manufactured by PTC Therapeutics Inc., meets the criteria for a 
priority review voucher. KEBILIDI (eladocagene exuparvovec-tneq) is 
indicated for treatment of adult and pediatric patients with aromatic 
L-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority 
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 
of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/industry/developing-products-rare-diseases-conditions/rare-pediatric-disease-rpd-designation-and-voucher-programs. For further information about 
KEBILIDI (eladocagene exuparvovec-tneq), go to the Center for Biologics 
Evaluation and Research's Approved Cellular and Gene Therapy Products 
website at https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/

[[Page 95220]]

cellular-gene-therapy-products/approved-cellular-and-gene-therapy-
products.

    Dated: November 26, 2024.
P. Ritu Nalubola,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-28206 Filed 11-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
```
IN the INTEREST OF K.S., a child.

C.L., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-453

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Matter of R.O., a Juvenile

No. 06-16-00040-CV

Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 1-JV-14). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess 

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 27, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

www.flsb.uscourts.gov 

In re: 

ROBERT W. SZOSTAK, 

 Debtor. 

Case No. 22-11098-MAM 

Chapter 7 

 / 

SEVENTH AGREED ORDER GRANTING CREDITOR MICROBILT CORPORATION 

AND PRINCETON ALTERNATIVE FUNDING, LLC’S SEVENTH AGREED EX PARTE

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO OBJECT TO DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT 

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 523 AND TO DISCHARGE PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 727 

[ECF NO. 81] 

THIS MATTER came before the Court, ex parte, without a hearing, upon the Seventh 

Agreed Ex Parte Motion to Extend Time to Object to Dischargeability Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 

and Discharge Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 [ECF No. 81] (the “Motion”) filed by Creditors 

Mindy A. Mora, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on February 6, 2023.

Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 82 Filed 02/07/23 Page 1 of 2
 - 2 - 

MicroBilt Corporation and Princeton Alternative Funding, LLC (together, the “Creditors”) and the 

Court, having considered the Motion, noting that the Debtor has agreed to the requested relief, it 

is hereby 

ORDERED: 

1. The Motion is Granted. 

2. The time within which Creditors may file a complaint objecting the dischargeability 

of certain debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523, and/or for objecting to Debtors’ discharge pursuant to 

11 U.S.C. § 727, is hereby extended to March 8, 2023. 

### 

Submitted by: 

Alexis A. Leventhal (Fla. Bar No. 108064) 

Reed Smith LLP 

225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

Telephone: (412) 288-3131 

Facsimile: (412) 288-3063 

Email: aleventhal@reedsmith.com 

Attorney Leventhal is directed to serve a copy of this order on all interested parties within three 

(3) days of entry and to file a certificate of service thereon.

Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 82 Filed 02/07/23 Page 2 of 2
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

9863 

Vol. 71, No. 38 

Monday, February 27, 2006 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–53276; File No. SR–NASD– 

2005–098] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

National Association of Securities 

Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of 

Proposed Rule Change and 

Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to 

the Submission of SEC Rule 15c2–11 

Information on Non-Nasdaq Securities 

Correction 

In notice document E6–2368 

beginning on page 8875 in the issue of 

Tuesday, February 21, 2006, make the 

following correction: 

On page 8877, in the third column, in 

the second and third lines from the top, 

‘‘March 10, 2006’’ should read ‘‘March 

14, 2006’’. 

[FR Doc. Z6–2368 Filed 2–24–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES5
Case 22-12527-CLC Doc 72 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 3
Case 22-12527-CLC Doc 72 Filed 08/28/23 Page 2 of 3
Case 22-12527-CLC Doc 72 Filed 08/28/23 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1




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 Annual Report of Omnialuo, Inc. on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers
of OmniaLuo, Inc. hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 OmniaLuo, Inc.




By:
            /s/
      Zheng LuoZheng
      LuoChief
      Executive OfficerBy:
            /s/
      David WangDavid
      WangActing Chief Financial
Officer




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




March 31,
2009
Edwin James PARRIS-FRETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2581

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Willie MCGEE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2611

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_faqs(4)
              - science_science(189)
              - products_data(130)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2007)
              - (-)products_software(7)
              - products_web_tools(8)
              - multimedia_audio(82)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(78)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(4)
              - multimedia_before_after(5)
              - multimedia_image(196)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(145)
              - multimedia_image-141772(4)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(22)
              - multimedia_image-141776(16)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(229)
              - multimedia_video-149194(87)
              - multimedia_video-149195(54)
              - multimedia_video-149196(16)
              - multimedia_video-149197(15)
              - multimedia_video-149198(13)
              - multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(10)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(4)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149222(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149246(2)
              - news_news-149248(5)
              - news_news-149249(2)
              - news_news-149250(7)
              - (-)news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - connect_staff_profiles(23)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(16)

## By Location

## By Year

Software Release        April 23, 2019        Coupled-Ocean-Atmosphere-Wave-Sediment Transport (COAWST) Modeling System

Software Release        April 1, 2024        Landsat QA ArcGIS Pro Toolbox

newsletter        January 10, 2022      The Monitor newsletter - Vol. 5 | Issue Winter 2022

newsletter        October 5, 2023      Latest in Landsat - October 2023 - Vol. 2 | Issue 10

Software Release        March 20, 2019        COAWST Modeling System v3.4

Software Release        August 27, 2020        Ash3D provides forecasts of ash clouds and ashfall.

Software Release        March 9, 2022        climb8: An R package for querying and joining climate or meteorological data with USGS hydrologic data

Software Release        December 5, 2021        PHREEQC Version 3

Software Release        March 14, 2018        Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Model (WEBMOD)