alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-21017

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER C. MOUTOH,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(CR-H-95-8-7)

______________________________________________

July 3, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher C. Moutoh appeals his sentence for conspiracy to

defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286. He

argues that the district court clearly erred in declining to award

a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Moutoh's plea agreement contains a provision
2

waiving his right to appeal, "except the right to appeal an illegal

sentence." That language does not unambiguously preclude our

consideration of Moutoh's argument. See United States v. Baty, 980

F.2d 977, 979 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 956, 113 S.

Ct. 2457, 124 L. Ed.2d 672 (1993).

Moutoh's argument that his guilty plea and cooperation are

conclusive of acceptance of responsibility ignores many of the

other provisions in the plea agreement, and is without merit.

Because Moutoh neither truthfully admitted the conduct comprising

the offense nor "came clean" regarding the full extent of his

criminal conduct, the district court did not clearly err by denying

the downward adjustment. See United States v. Diaz, 39 F.3d 568,

572 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Juan Montilla, Petitioner, v Albert Prack, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 922]—

*1581Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

As a result of his failure to provide a urine sample for testing, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with failing to comply with urinalysis testing procedures and refusing a direct order. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charges. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Petitioner arguably pleaded guilty to the charges at issue, thereby precluding him from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Lineberger v Bezio,*89 AD3d 1293, 1294 [2011], *appeal dismissed*19 NY3d 847 [2012]; *Matter of King v Fischer,*62 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2009]). However, even in the absence of such plea, the determination of guilt was supported by substantial evidence, including the inmate’s admission that he did not provide a urine sample, the misbehavior report and the testimony of the nurse administrator. Moreover, petitioner’s explanation for his failure to provide a urine sample presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Malik v Bezio,*76 AD3d 1128, 1128 [2010]; *Matter of Reynoso v Fischer,*73 AD3d 1315, 1316 [2010]). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the determination of guilt.

Peters, PJ., Mercure, Spain, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

WILLIAM F. HOLDNER, D.B.A. 

HOLDNER FARMS 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

KATY COBA, DIRECTOR OF OREGON 

DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, IN HER 

INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; 

DICK PEDERSON, DIRECTOR OF THE 

OREGON DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND 

OFFICIAL CAP A CITY, 

Defendants. 

ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge: 

Civ. No. 3:15-cv-2039-AC 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Before the court is plaintiff William F. Holdner's ("Holdner") appeal (ECF No. 49) of the 

court's Opinion and Order (ECF No. 43) and Judgment (ECF No. 44) dismissing Holdner's 

lawsuit with prejudice. 

All parties to this case granted full consent to jurisdiction by a U.S. Magirstrate Judge on 

January 19, 2016. (ECFNo. 19.) 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) provides, 

Case 3:15-cv-02039-AC Document 50 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 2
Upon the consent of the pmiies, a full-time United States magistrate judge or a pmi-time 

United States magistrate judge who serves as a full-time judicial officer may conduct any 

or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the 

case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court or comis 

he serves. 

Upon entry of judgment in any case referred under paragraph (I) of this subsection, an 

aggrieved pmiy may appeal directly to the appropriate United States comi of appeals 

from the judgment of the magistrate judge in the same manner as an appeal from any 

other judgment of a district court. 

Id. at(!), (3). 

The proper route of appeal of the court's Order and Judgment is therefore to the Ninth 

Circuit court of appeals. For these reasons, Holdner's appeal (ECF No. 4-9) is procedurally 

invalid and is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2016, 

JO:rpN V. ACOSTA 

United 8-Jlates Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02039-AC Document 50 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 2
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1771 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to count portions of income 

from annuities of a community spouse as income available to institutionalized spouses for purposes of eligibility for medical assistance, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2015 

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to count 

portions of income from annuities of a community spouse 

as income available to institutionalized spouses for purposes of eligibility for medical assistance, and for other 

purposes. 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1771 IH

1 SECTION 1. COUNTING PORTIONS OF INCOME FROM ANNU2 ITIES OF A COMMUNITY SPOUSE AS INCOME 

3 AVAILABLE TO INSTITUTIONALIZED SPOUSES 

4 FOR MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1924(b)(2) of the Social 

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r–5(b)(2)) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(E) ANNUITY INCOME.— 

9 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In the case of 

10 payment of income from a qualifying annu11 ity— 

12 ‘‘(I) if payment of income is 

13 made solely in the name of the com14 munity spouse, one-half of the income 

15 shall be considered available to the in16 stitutionalized spouse and one-half to 

17 the community spouse; 

18 ‘‘(II) if payment of income is 

19 made in the names of the institu20 tionalized spouse and the community 

21 spouse, one-half of the income shall be 

22 considered available to the institu23 tionalized spouse and one-half to the 

24 community spouse; and 

25 ‘‘(III) if payment of income is 

26 made in the names of the community 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1771 IH

1 spouse and another person or persons, 

2 one-half of the proportion of the com3 munity spouse’s interest in such in4 come shall be considered available to 

5 the institutionalized spouse. 

6 ‘‘(ii) QUALIFYING ANNUITY.—In this 

7 subparagraph, the term ‘qualifying annu8 ity’ means an annuity that— 

9 ‘‘(I) is purchased after the date 

10 that is 60 months before the date 

11 specified in subparagraph (B)(ii) of 

12 section 1917(c)(1) for an amount that 

13 is equal to or greater than fair market 

14 value; and 

15 ‘‘(II) is not described in clause 

16 (i) of subparagraph (G) of such sec17 tion. 

18 ‘‘(iii) INAPPLICABILITY OF OTHER

19 RULES.—The rules of subparagraphs (A) 

20 and (B) shall not apply with respect to in21 come from a qualifying annuity.’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

23 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to annuities purVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:08 Apr 15, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1771.IH H1771

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 1771 IH

1 chased or established on or after the date of the enactment 

2 of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Horticultural Crops Research Unit: Corvallis, OR
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Other
                        History
                                    Useful Links
                    HortHappenings News PageSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Corvallis, Oregon Horticultural Crops Research Unit





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Programs and Projects at this LocationARS research is organized into National Programs. Within each National Program are research projects. Listed below are  the National Programs and research projects currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a National Program (NP) will take you  to the main ARS site for more information on the program. Clicking on a research  project title will take you to more information on the project.  Current View: All Projects   Show All Projects ||
         Appropriated Projects Only


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42209

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

SCOTT BRADLEY MURIHUGH

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 340

Filed: February 10, 2015

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. Richard D. Greenwood , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Scott Bradley Murihugh pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a child . I.C.

§ 18

- 1507(2)(a)

. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The

district court sentenced Ma rihugh to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of

confinement of three years . The district court retained jurisdiction, and Marihugh was sent to

participate in the rider program.

After Marihugh completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction.

Marihugh appeals, claiming that the district court erred by refusing to grant probation.2 We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to

relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a ma tter within the sound discretion of the district

court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood , 102

Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee , 117 Idaho 203, 205

- 06, 786 P.2d 594, 596

-

97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the

information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Marihugh

has failed to sh ow that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.

Marihugh argues that all of the relevant goals of sentencing could have been

accomplished with probation. As noted above, however, the district court found that probation

wa s not an appropriate course of action in Marihugh ’s case. The record does not indicate that the

district court abused its discretion in sentencing.

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.
# C_2006288EN.01000201.xml

| 25.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/2

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2006/C 288/02)

| 1. | As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 (1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below. |
| --- | --- |

1.

As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 (1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Division B-1), J-79 5/16, B-1049 Brussels (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

| 4. | This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995.









  Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Colour television receivers | People's Republic of China
  Republic of Korea
  Malaysia
  Thailand | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1531/2002 (OJ L 231, 29.8.2002, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 511/2006 (OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 26) | 30.8.2007 |

4.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995.

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Colour television receivers

People's Republic of China

Republic of Korea

Malaysia

Thailand

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1531/2002 (OJ L 231, 29.8.2002, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 511/2006 (OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 26)

30.8.2007

---

(1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

1

(2)  Telefax: (32-2) 295 65 05.

2

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Jones, Appellant.

The defendant’s contention that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. The jury was free to accept some, if not all, of the complainant’s testimony *(see, e.g., People v Jackson,*65 NY2d 265).

Also without merit is the defendant’s contention that the court erred when it permitted the People to introduce into evidence his postarrest threat to kill the complainant *(see, People v Barksdale,*100 AD2d 852).

Finally, we decline to exercise our discretion to modify the *750defendant’s sentence. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            AGREEMENT OF PARTNERSHIP
                     PW/GEODYNE PRODUCTION PARTNERSHIP II-D

       The Agreement of Partnership of PW/Geodyne  Production  Partnership  II-D
dated May 10, 1988 (the "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows:

       A.  The first  sentence of Section 2.1 is hereby  deleted and  replaced
by the following provision:

       "The  Production  Partnership  shall be conducted  under the name Geodyne
Production Partnership II-D."

       B.  All   references  in  the  Agreement  to   "PW/Geodyne   Production
Partnership II-D" are hereby changed to "Geodyne Production Partnership II-D."

       C.  The third  sentence of Section 2.1 is hereby  deleted and  replaced
by the following provision:

       "The office and principal place of business of the Production Partnership
shall be c/o  Geodyne  Production  Company,  Two West  Second,  Tulsa,  Oklahoma
74103."

       D.  The  name of the  "General  Partner"  and the  "Limited  Partnership"
reflected  in Article  One has been  changed  from  "PaineWebber/Geodyne  Energy
Income Limited  Partnership II-D" to "Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership
II-D". All references in the Agreement to the name of the "General  Partner" and
the "Limited  Partnership" are hereby changed to reflect this name change.  This
change reflects a name change only and not a change of entity.

       In all other respects the Agreement is hereby ratified and affirmed.

 DATED:    February 26, 1993
                                         Managing Partner:

                                         Geodyne Production Company

                                         /s/ Michael E. Luttrell
                                         ----------------------------------
                                         Michael E. Luttrell
                                         Executive Vice President

                                      -1-
<PAGE>


                                         General Partner:

                                         Geodyne Energy Income Limited
                                         Partnership II-D

                                         By: Geodyne Properties, Inc. General
                                             Partner


                                         By: /s/ Michael E. Luttrell
                                            ------------------------------
                                             Michael E. Luttrell,
                                             Executive Vice President



                                      -2-
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00251

- CR

JOSE JUAN VARELA v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 3003

- 10

- J

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 9, 2014
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated December 28,2009, accompanying the consolidated financial statements of Good TimesRestaurants, Inc., also incorporated by reference in the Form S-8 RegistrationStatements with registration numbers 333-60813, 333-98407, and 333-125150 andForm S-3 Registration Statement 333-122890 of Good Times Restaurants, Inc., andto the use of our name and the statements with respect to us, as appearingunder the heading "Experts" in the Registration Statements.

***HEIN****& ASSOCIATES LLP*

Denver, Colorado

December 28, 2009

----