alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for **

the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

H. BERRY, by and through his Guardian

Ad Litem Penny Berry; et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

LAS VIRGENES UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-55693

D.C. No. 2:04-cv-08572-FMC-SS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 2, 2010 

Pasadena, California

Before: RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District ** 

Judge.

FILED

MAR 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The Las Virgenes Unified School District (School District) appeals the

district court’s determination that it violated the procedural requirements of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., by

predetermining the placement of an autistic boy, H.B., prior to his individualized

education program (IEP) meeting. We previously considered this case and

remanded so that the district court could make findings regarding the School

District’s intent or state of mind prior to and during the IEP meeting. H.B. v. Las

Virgenes Unified Sch. Dist., 239 F. App’x 342 (9th Cir. 2007). The court held an

evidentiary hearing on remand, and made factual determinations that we review for

clear error. See Ash v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 585, 588 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Seeing none, we affirm.

Based on testimony from School District representatives and the child’s

mother at the evidentiary hearing as well as the entire record, the district court

found that the decision to transfer H.B. from his private placement to the district

had been made before the meeting was held. It specifically found district

representatives’ testimony about being open to considering alternative placements

incredible, and found credible the mother’s testimony that her minimal

participation was due to futility. These findings are not clearly erroneous. 

Applying the legal standard endorsed in our prior disposition, the district court

concluded that H.B.’s placement was predetermined. This being so, the procedural
requirements of the IDEA were violated, and the hearing officer’s decision was

properly reversed. 

AFFIRMED.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45667

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SHAY LYNN WILLIFORD aka BLASS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: August 2, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, 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. Samuel Hoagland, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of four years, for felony possession of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Shay Lynn Williford pleaded guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine, felony, Idaho 

Code § 37-2732B(1)(4). The district court imposed a unified fifteen-year sentence, with four 

years determinate. Williford appeals, contending that her sentence is excessive.

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 
2

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, Williford’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

108 

CAF 10-02328 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF TIMOTHY D. MIHALKO, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

CHERI CHARLTON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

AVERY S. OLSON, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, JAMESTOWN, FOR TIMOTHY J.M. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County (Paul

G. Buchanan, J.), entered October 4, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order awarded sole custody of the

parties’ child to petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs as moot (see Matter of Graham v Thering, 55 AD3d 1319,

1320, lv denied 11 NY3d 714; Matter of Krest v Kawczynski, 9 AD3d 907,

907-908).

Entered: February 10, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
STATE of Louisiana v. Teddy CHESTER

NO. 2018-KK-1536

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 18, 2018

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., recused.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Clifford M. Gross, Chief Executive Officer of UTEK Corporation, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of UTEK Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant’s disclosure controlsand 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 registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sBoard 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 registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Dated this 8th day of August, 2005.
STATE EX REL. Corneilous WHEELER v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2015-KH-1424

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 28, 2018

Not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. IX, § 6.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - (-)science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2978)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - colorado(2)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(5)
              - 2023(1)

faq        July 7, 2017        What is declination?

faq        June 30, 2017        Why are amphibian populations declining?

faq        June 30, 2017        What is the United States doing about amphibian deformity and decline issues?

faq        July 7, 2017        Why measure the magnetic field at the Earth's surface? Wouldn't satellites be better suited for space-weather studies?

faq        July 31, 2017        What do the different north arrows on a USGS topographic map mean?

staff profileSharon K Taylor, DVM, PhD

staff profileHeidi Leathers-Miller

staff profileSteven M Matsuoka

staff profileNicholas J Van Lanen, PhD

staff profileShannon Brewer, PhD

staff profileBarbara Martin
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-439670

NO. 2018-BA-1551

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 28, 2018

BAR ADMISSIONS PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner is immediately eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioner shall continue to comply with the terms of the recovery agreement he signed with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program ("JLAP") on September 7, 2018.

2. The period of this conditional admission shall coincide with the period of petitioner's JLAP agreement. However, petitioner's conditional admission status shall not be terminated until this court so orders.

3. Petitioner shall authorize the Executive Director of JLAP to report any violations of the JLAP agreement to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC").

4. Upon the expiration of the term of petitioner's JLAP agreement, the Executive Director of JLAP shall forward to the ODC (a) a final report of petitioner's progress and participation in JLAP, and (b) a recommendation regarding the need for petitioner's continued participation in JLAP.

5. Following receipt of the report from JLAP, the ODC shall file a report in this court in which it shall recommend whether the conditional admission shall be allowed to terminate or shall be extended.

6. Petitioner shall cooperate with JLAP and the ODC, and shall comply with any and all requirements imposed upon him by JLAP and the ODC.

Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

**CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.**
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Crop water productivity

Filters

              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - arizona(5)
              - arkansas(2)
              - california(16)
              - colorado(1)
              - (-)florida(1)
              - hawaii(3)
              - idaho(1)
              - illinois(2)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(5)
              - kansas(2)
              - louisiana(2)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(5)
              - missouri(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - new mexico(2)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(2)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south dakota(25)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(3)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(1)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        March 30, 2023        PubTalk-03/2023: Coral Reef in Crisis - Science to Guide Reef Restoration for Ecosystem Recovery
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
February 7, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 132368 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132368 COA: 269172 Wayne CC: 00-008989-01 ANTHONY WITHERSPOON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

K ELLY , J., would request the prosecutor to provide proof of service of the amended information.

p0131 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
February 7, 2007
Clerk
Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 9
Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 9
Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 9
Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 9
Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 9
Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 6 of 9
Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 7 of 9
Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 8 of 9
Case 22-11098-MAM Doc 7 Filed 02/11/22 Page 9 of 9
LOUISIANA SAFETY ASSOCIATION OF TIMBERMEN- SELF INSURERS FUND v. WILL TRANSPORT, L.L.C.

NO. 2018-C-0734

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

Denied.
Joseph J. DEMTY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0862

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
STATE EX REL. Willie DILLON v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-1192

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.
Dennis J. FULLENKAMP, Trustee, Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT MYERS, Florida, a Municipality of the State of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3244

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Terrance L. MCCLOUD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1499

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 19, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Albert M. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. Teresa Lynn BOUCHER, Curtright Collins Truitt, John Doe Employees 1-4 of the Law Firm of Curtright C. Truitt, and Jane Robinson, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-3088

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Donte Oceanius HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2758

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed September 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5455 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to separate the 

market monitoring functions of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection from the Bureau’s supervisory functions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 10, 2016 

Mr. WESTMORELAND introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 

to separate the market monitoring functions of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection from the Bureau’s supervisory functions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Consumer 

5 Financial Information Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5455 IH

1 SEC. 2. SEPARATION OF MARKET MONITORING FUNCTIONS 

2 AND SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS. 

3 The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 

4 U.S.C. 5481 et seq.) is amended— 

5 (1) in section 1022(c)— 

6 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘In order 

7 to support its rulemaking and other functions, 

8 the’’ and inserting ‘‘The’’; and 

9 (B) in paragraph (4)— 

10 (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting 

11 after ‘‘gather information’’ the following: 

12 ‘‘on a sampling basis’’; 

13 (ii) in subparagraph (B)— 

14 (I) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘a 

15 variety of sources, including examina16 tion reports concerning covered per17 sons or service providers’’; and 

18 (II) in clause (ii), by inserting 

19 after ‘‘require’’ the following: ‘‘, on a 

20 sampling basis,’’; and 

21 (iii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting 

22 before the period the following: ‘‘or for 

23 purposes of assessing such covered per24 sons’ or service providers’ compliance with 

25 the requirements of Federal consumer fi26 nancial law’’; 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5455 IH

1 (2) in section 1024(b)(1)— 

2 (A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ‘‘and’’ 

3 at the end; 

4 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘; 

5 and’’ and inserting a period; and 

6 (C) by striking subparagraph (C); 

7 (3) in section 1025(b)(1)— 

8 (A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ‘‘and’’ 

9 at the end; 

10 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘; 

11 and’’ and inserting a period; and 

12 (C) by striking subparagraph (C); and 

13 (4) in section 1026(b), by striking ‘‘, and to as14 sess and detect risks to consumers and consumer fi15 nancial markets’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31 (2)
 
 CERTIFICATION
 BY PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14
 
 I, Robert F. OConnell, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Patriot National Bancorp, 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 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)
[Omitted as permitted by Exchange Act Release No. 47986];(c)
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(d)
Disclosed in this report any change in 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; and5.
The small business issuers other certifying officer 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
 
 /s/ Robert F. OConnellRobert F. OConnellSenior Executive Vice President(Principal financial officer)August 12, 2004
Charles MOULTRIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-940

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Anthony J. MONTECINO v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

NO. 2018-CI-1039

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

*494WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.
Dwayne JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Earl A. GOODWYNE, Deputy Sheriff, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1866

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.