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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44685

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ALAN B. FIFE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 641

Filed: November 8, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 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 

Alan B. Fife, Jr., pled guilty to aggravated battery. Idaho Code §§ 18-903, 18-907. The 

district court sentenced Fife to a unified term of ten years with three years determinate, 

suspended the sentence and placed Fife on probation for a period of three years. Subsequently, 

Fife admitted to violating probation, the district court revoked Fife’s probation, executed his 

sentence, and retained jurisdiction. After successfully completing his rider, the district court 

placed Fife on probation for a period of three years. Several months later, it was determined that 

Fife had again violated his probation. At the disposition hearing, Fife orally asked the district 

court to reduce the determinate portion of his sentence, pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35. The 
2

district court denied Fife’s Rule 35 motion and executed the underlying sentence. Fife appeals

asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

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

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

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

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

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

record, including any new information submitted with Fife’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Fife’s Rule 35 

motion is affirmed.
Case: 1:02-cv-01481 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/28/02 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-01481 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/28/02 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-01481 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/28/02 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-01481 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/28/02 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-01481 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/28/02 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-01481 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/28/02 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:1
# C_2020137EN.01005002.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/50

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — HB v Commission

(Case T-795/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Irregularities in the contract award procedure - Recovery of sums already paid - Debit note - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)

(2020/C 137/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: M. Vandenbussche and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2019) 7319 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract CARDS/2008/166-429 and to recover the amounts unduly paid.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN
                                                 Wirtschaftsprufungsgesellschaft
                                                 Steuerberatungsgesellschaft mbH
 
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Mergenthalerallee 10-12
                                                 65760 Eschborn/Frankfurt/M.
                                                 Postfach 53 23
                                                 65728 Eschborn/Frankfurt/M.
                                                 (0 61 96) 9 96-213 Telefon
                                                 (0 61 96) 9 96-212 Telefax
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-60399 and
333-65083) of SAP Aktiengesellschaft Systeme, Anwendungen, Produkte in der
Datenverarbeitung (the "Company") of our report dated February 26, 1999,
contained in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 1998 and to all references to our Firm included in these
registration statements.
 
Eschborn/Frankfurt/M., May 18, 1999
 
<TABLE>
<S>                                            <C>
                                       ARTHUR ANDERSEN
                               Wirschaftsprufungsgesellschaft
                               Steuerberatungsgesellschaft mbH
 
                  /s/  Weber                                     /s/  Klein
     ------------------------------------           ------------------------------------
               Prof. Dr. Weber                                     Klein
              Wirtschaftsprufer                              Wirtschaftsprufer
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                          5,284
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   5,744
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     10,378
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                23,845
<PP&E>                          13,007
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  36,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           23,965
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        13
<OTHER-SE>                      11,065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    36,852
<SALES>                         29,386
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                29,386
<CGS>                           (22,309)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   (25,468)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                (586)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 3,332
<INCOME-TAX>                    (276)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             3,056
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    3,056
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .24
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.3
 CERTIFICATION OF DR. WERNER BRANDT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SAP AG
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date
March 18, 2011
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Dr. Werner BrandtName:
    
    Dr. Werner BrandtTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:46
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:47
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:48
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:49
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:50
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:51
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:52
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:53
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:54
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:55
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:56
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:57
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:58
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:59
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:60
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:61
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:62
#### Emma Victoria HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNC HEALTHCARE SYSTEM; Norman Klase, Human Resource Manager In His Official Capacity; Susan Phillips, Vice President For Surgical Services, Individually and In Her Official Capacity; Patt Sturdivant, Chief Anesthesia Technician, Individually and In Her Official Capacity; Gail Walker, Team-Leader For Anesthesia Technicians & Central Supply Technicians, Individually and In Her Official Capacity; Bonnie Overman, American Disability Agent & Equal Employment Opportunity Agent, Individually and In Her Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-1285.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 25, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 29, 2011.

*667Emma Victoria Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Celia Grasty Lata, UNO Hospitals/UNC Health Care, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emma Victoria Howard appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Howard v. UNC Health Care Sys.,*No. 1:10-CV-00047-WO-PTS, 2011 WL 941495 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2011). 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.*
Case: 1:01-cr-00649 Document #: 123 Filed: 06/04/08 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:333
Opinion issued July 19, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-11-00584-CV

Dr. Theresa Hearn-Haynes, Appellant

V.

Candlelight Hills, Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-81797

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Dr. Theresa Hearn-Haynes, has neither established indigence nor 

paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk=s record. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence), 37.3(b) 
2

(allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault). 

After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not 

adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss all pending 

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown.
#### In the Matter of Shaundell Winter, Appellant, v Paul S. Karins, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 524]

In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Staton, J.H.O.), dated December 13, 2010, which, in effect, granted the father’s motion to dismiss her petition to modify a prior order of visitation of the Family Court, Albany County (Maney, J.), dated August 22, 2008, on *866the ground that the Family Court, Kings County, lacked jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order dated December 13, 2010, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion to dismiss the petition is denied, and thé proceeding is transferred from the Family Court, Kings County, to the Family Court, Albany County.

The Family Court, Kings County, erred by, in effect, granting the father’s motion to dismiss the petition upon the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. Family Court Act § 171 provides that “[a] lawful order of the family court in any county may be enforced or modified in that county or in the family court in any other county in which the party affected by the order resides or is found.” Here, the mother and the parties’ son reside in Kings County, and the mother was a “party affected” by the prior order of visitation (Family Ct Act § 171; *see Matter of Feeney v Graef,*233 AD2d 941, 942 [1996]; *Matter of Garner v Forsythe,*80 AD2d 712, 713 [1981]). Thus, the Family Court, Kings County, had jurisdiction to entertain the mother’s petition to modify the prior order of visitation issued by the Family Court, Albany County.

However, the father correctly asserted that this proceeding should be determined in Albany County, as the proceeding could have been originated there *(see*Family Ct Act §§ 171, 174), and he demonstrated “good cause” for its transfer *(see*Family Ct Act § 174; *Matter of Cruz v Cruz,*48 AD3d 804, 805 [2008]; *Matter of Henry v Skratt,*11 AD3d 691, 692 [2004]). The father resides in Albany County and the mother’s petition for modification was based upon incidents which allegedly occurred in Albany County *(see Matter of Henry v Skratt,*11 AD3d at 692). Accordingly, the convenience of-the parties and potential witnesses will be best served by the transfer of the proceeding to Albany County *(see Matter of Arcuri v Osuna,*41 AD3d 841, 841-842 [2007]; *Matter of Henry v Skratt,*11 AD3d at 692). Dillon, J.P., Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification

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)

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 Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|                     |  |       
|Date: August 9, 2006 |  |        |  | /s/ F. William Conner  
|                     |  | Name:  |  | F. William Conner      
|                     |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
Case 1:01-cr-00561 Document 6 Filed 11/08/01 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:01-cr-00561 Document 6 Filed 11/08/01 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:01-cr-00561 Document 6 Filed 11/08/01 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:01-cr-00561 Document 6 Filed 11/08/01 Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                     OF THE

                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF

                                 CORESTAFF, INC.



                  CORESTAFF, Inc. (the "CORPORATION"), a corporation organized
and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:


                  FIRST: That the Board of Directors of the Corporation adopted
resolutions on February 5, 1998 proposing and declaring advisable the following
amendment to the First Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and
directing that the amendment proposed be considered by the stockholders of the
Corporation:


                  RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Corporation does
hereby propose and declare advisable an amendment to the First Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation to amend Article 1 so
that such Article reads in its entirety as follows:

                  ARTICLE 1. The name of the Corporation is Metamor 
    Worldwide, Inc.


                  SECOND: That the amendment referred to herein was duly
authorized by a majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote thereon at a
Special Meeting of Stockholders on March 19, 1998.


                  THIRD: That the aforesaid amendments have been duly adopted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 242 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law.


                  FOURTH: That this Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate
of Incorporation has been executed and acknowledged and shall be filed and
recorded in accordance with Section 103 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware.


<PAGE>   2



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by
its Chief Executive Officer and attested by its Secretary, as of the 19th day of
March, 1998.


                                   CORESTAFF, Inc.


                                   By: /s/ MICHAEL T. WILLIS
                                       -----------------------
                                        Michael T. Willis
                                        Chief Executive Officer and President


ATTEST:


By:  /s/ PETER T. DAMERIS
   ------------------------
         Peter T. Dameris
         Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          52,049
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,476,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,289
<INVENTORY>                                  1,142,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,871,929
<PP&E>                                       8,108,171
<DEPRECIATION>                                 851,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,232,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,418,687
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,326
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,654,643
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,232,733
<SALES>                                      1,491,572
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,214,270
<CGS>                                        2,610,324
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,746,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,559,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                32,139
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,109,171)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,109,171)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,109,171)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 276 

Expressing support for the goals and ideals of National Infant Mortality 

Awareness Month 2011. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. BURR, and Mr. MENENDEZ) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the goals and ideals of National 

Infant Mortality Awareness Month 2011. 

Whereas ‘‘infant mortality’’ refers to the death of a baby before his or her first birthday; 

Whereas the United States ranks 41st among industrialized 

countries in the rate of infant mortality; 

Whereas high rates of infant mortality are especially prevalent in communities with large minority populations, high 

rates of unemployment and poverty, and limited access to 

safe housing and medical providers; 

Whereas premature birth is a leading cause of infant mortality; 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 276 ATS 

Whereas according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, premature birth costs the United 

States more than $26,000,000,000 annually; 

Whereas infant mortality can be substantially reduced 

through community-based services such as outreach, 

home visitation, case management, health education, and 

interconceptional care; 

Whereas support for community-based programs to reduce infant mortality can result in lower future spending on 

medical interventions, special education, and other social 

services that may be needed for infants and children who 

are born with a low birth weight; 

Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services, 

through the Office of Minority Health, has implemented 

the ‘‘A Healthy Baby Begins With You’’ campaign; 

Whereas the Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the 

Health Resources and Services Administration has provided national leadership on the issue of infant mortality; 

Whereas public awareness and education campaigns on infant 

mortality are held during the month of September each 

year; and 

Whereas September 2011 has been designated as ‘‘National 

Infant Mortality Awareness Month’’: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

3 Infant Mortality Awareness Month 2011; 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 276 ATS 

1 (2) supports efforts to educate people in the 

2 United States about infant mortality and the factors 

3 that contribute to infant mortality; 

4 (3) supports efforts to reduce infant deaths, low 

5 birth weight, pre-term births, and disparities in 

6 perinatal outcomes; 

7 (4) recognizes the critical importance of includ8 ing efforts to reduce infant mortality and the factors 

9 that contribute to infant mortality as part of preven10 tion and wellness strategies; and 

11 (5) calls upon the people of the United States 

12 to observe National Infant Mortality Awareness 

13 Month with appropriate programs and activities. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS