alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**RB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 18 - 0606 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KEVIN J. PARISIAN ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 6 0 -day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including March 13 , 2021 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 7 2021

01/07/2021

Case Number: DA 18-0606
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42002

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BARRY WAYNE PATE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 648

Filed: August 6, 2014

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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 Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and consecutive unified sentences of ten years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of five years, for one count of lewd conduct with 

a minor under sixteen, and ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of

four years, for one count of sexual abuse of a child under sixteen, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Chief, 

Appellate Unit, Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Barry Wayne Pate pled guilty to one count of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, 

Idaho Code § 18-1508, and one count of sexual abuse of a child under sixteen, I.C. § 18-1506. 

The district court sentenced Pate to consecutive unified sentences of ten years with five years 

determinate on the lewd conduct charge, and ten years with four years determinate on the sexual 

abuse of a child charge. Pate appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by 

imposing excessive sentences.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 
2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Pate’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1776 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for automatic continuing 

resolutions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2015 

Mr. GRAYSON (for himself and Mr. CARTWRIGHT) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for 

automatic continuing resolutions. 

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 ‘‘Shut Down the Shut5 downs Act’’, or the ‘‘Don’t Interrupt America Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTOMATIC CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 Chapter 13 of title 31, United States Code, is amend8 ed by inserting after section 1310 the following new sec9 tion: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1776 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 1311. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 ‘‘(a) Should an appropriation for the operation of any 

3 program, project, or activity within a Federal agency ex4 pire prior to the passage of a new appropriation measure 

5 funding that agency, each expired program, project, or ac6 tivity within that agency shall be appropriated a sum equal 

7 to the annualized rate of the previous appropriation, pro8 rated through the end of— 

9 ‘‘(1) the fiscal year if such expiration occurs on 

10 or prior to September 29 of any given year; or 

11 ‘‘(2) the following fiscal year if such expiration 

12 occurs on September 30 of any given year. 

13 Funds previously made available, and prior authorization, 

14 for such programs, projects, or activities shall also be ex15 tended consistent with this subsection. 

16 ‘‘(b) Any appropriation, or funds made available, or 

17 authority granted, for a program, project, or activity, pur18 suant to this section, shall be subject to the same terms 

19 and conditions as were in place on the date prior to any 

20 extension made pursuant to this section.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
§c!4.S•<4VfVVVfii\:-^rro.nnR'".-,^iwKonoftfrf>o*44s<J\)NJ\1i\\NCM§"f-\.-L-«::xVj,t4-5fVV">rVTKV^si•5SOs-IM>:^\I\jI^t^,vrFILED,-pr.INJHECOUftIOffyfiAFSANANTuNiO.Itx,:.'.ZOISNOV2UAH10:30£.HOTTLS.r!rfrf
Exhibit
32








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION





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 quarterly report of PacificHealth Laboratories, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), Jason Ash, President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, and
Stephen P. Kuchen, Chief Financial 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 based on our knowledge:





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





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





This
Certification shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for the purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





DATE:  October
30, 2008






By:
            /s/
      Jason AshJason
      Ash, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)






DATE:  October
30, 2008







By:
            /s/
      Stephen P. KuchenStephen
      P. Kuchen, Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
#### In re HEMPSTEAD.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

September 14, 1896.)

No opinion. Application granted, without costs to either party. Order to be settled before PARKER, P. J.
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
 Range Management Research: Las Cruces, NM
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Comprehensive Publications
                    Research SummarySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Las Cruces, New Mexico Range Management Research Docs





- Landscape Toolbox
- Long Term Agricultural Research
- EcoTrends
- Long Term Ecological Research
- Ecological Site Descriptions
- Monitoring & Assessment
- Southwest Climate Hub
- Land Potential Knowledge System
- National Ecological Observatory Network
- JournalMap
- Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM)
- Data Catalogs

NRCS major land resource areas and land resource unitsheadline bar


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
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Nonnative Fish Control P

Nonnative Fish Control P

Responses to Reviews Responses to Reviews

M.E. AndersenUSGS SBSC Grand Canyon Monitoring and Resea
 SA and TWG Comment: Articulate

 Goal Process for addressing priorities Integration

 GCMRC Response: 

 Articulated goal: benefit native fish Describe priority setting process; an New science integration section arti

agency involvement in determining 

 Agencies will need to be involved in 

determination
 SA and TWG Comment: overall st

needed

 GCMRC response: we are writing 

integration section to provide detthe agencies and projects will inteprovide more specific overall stra
 SA and TWG comment: need to d

which species pose the greatest rnatives

 GCMRC response: 

 we are pursuing development of one 

models to help evaluate which specgreatest risk to natives

 Valdez and Speas (2009) provides re

temperature effects
 TWG comment: contingency sect

suffice to address risk from rainb

 GCMRC response: preparing new 

review details of how monitoring need for nonnative control (numbper year to address variable immirates)
 SA and TWG comment: where do 

control efforts need to be focused

 GCMRC response: adding map an

data to illustrate which species hcaptured and where; anticipate anupdating as new monitoring data available 
 SA and TWG comment: Planning 

need to be accelerated

 GCMRC response: 

 All planning elements in this plan, p

research and monitoring in future

 Risk assessment is being developed

complete will focus more on risk assalong with ongoing nonnative contromonitoring
 SA Comment: Focus on nonnativ

actions; research and monitoring 

 GCMRC Response: We have high

control actions, but believe the exproposed actions need to be supresearch and monitoring
 SA Comment: Contingency needs 

expanded with leadership from TWmanagement agencies

 GCMRC response: We’ve initiated 

discussion re: contingency plannfunding with management agenci
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-95,562-01

EX P ARTE JASON SHANE MOSES, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 19274-A IN THE 115 T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM UP SHUR COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Applicant was convicted of evading arrest with a vehicle and sentenced to twenty
- five y ears’ imprisonment. He f

iled this a pplication for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that was denied his rig h t to a n appeal because timely notice of appeal was not filed. Applicant wrote a letter requesting an appeal within the time frame to file a timely notice of appeal, b ut that letter was not received by the trial court until well after the time had passed to file such notice. Counsel w as not ineffective, nor d id the trial court err, but due to a delay in the mail sy stem, Applicant’s letter was not timely received. Relief is g ranted. Ex parte Riley , 193 S.W .3d 9 00 (Tex
. Crim. App. 2003). Applicant may2

file an out-of-time appeal of conviction in cause number 19,274 from the 1 15 th District Court of U p shur County
. W ithin ten day s f rom the date of this Court’s mandate, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indig ent. I f A p p l icant is indig ent and wants to be represented by
c o u n s e l , the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him on direct appeal. Should Applican t decide to appeal, must file a w ritten n otice of appeal in the trial court w ithin thirty day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the T e xa s D e p a r t m e nt o f C r i m i n al J u stice–Correctional Institutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: June 19, 2024 Do not publish
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

B.T. PALMER, A.Y. MARKS, M

. N

. FULTON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL J. MILLER

PRIVATE FIRST CLASS (E

- 2 ), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCC A 201600 16 0

GENER AL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 2 1 January 201 6

. Military Judge: Maj M.D. Sameit, US MC

. Convening Authority: Commander, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, New

Orleans, LA

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Col E

. R

. Kleis , US MC

. For Appe llant: L CDR Ryan C. Mattina , JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

28 July 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

After careful consideratio n of the record, submitted without

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved

by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military

Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
#### Greenbriar-Somers Corp., Appellant-Respondent, v Angelo Petrone et al., Respondents-Appellants.

In September 1982 the parties entered into a contract for the sale of real property located in the Town of Somers, with *706the plaintiff as seller and the defendants as purchasers. Although the closing did not occur as scheduled, the defendants moved into the property on December 17, 1982, and resided there until the closing occurred on July 7, 1983. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover the reasonable value of the defendants’ use and occupancy of the property prior to the date of closing.

Absent an agreement to create a landlord-tenant relationship, a vendor of property cannot recover an award for a contract vendee’s use and occupancy of the property *(see, Barbarita v Shilling,*111 AD2d 200; *Pinmor Realty Corp. v Baris Hotel Corp.,*83 AD2d 847; 1 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings § 64 [2d ed]). In this case, contrary to the defendants’ contentions, there was ample evidence from which the jury could find that the parties agreed to create a landlord-tenant relationship until the defendants took title to the property at the closing. For instance, the parties exchanged proposed modifications to the contract of sale and proposed leases which, although they differed in some of the collateral terms, acknowledged the creation of a landlord-tenant relationship and referred to the defendants’ status as tenants, not as purchasers in possession. At the trial, the defendants admitted that when they took possession of the property, they were prepared to pay as rent, pursuant to the proposed lease agreements, the plaintiff’s expenses, including interest on the balance of the purchase price, taxes, insurance and utilities.

However, the conclusion that the defendants were obligated to pay the plaintiff’s expenses as rent for only a portion of the period that they resided in the premises prior to the date of closing is not supported by the evidence. The tenancy was not terminated by the delay in closing which, we note, was caused primarily by the defendants’ refusal, after taking possession, to either sign a lease or a stipulation permitting the plaintiff to seek recovery for the reasonable value of their use and occupancy of the premises after the closing. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for the expenses incurred by it from December 17, 1982 through July 7, 1983, the period that the defendants resided in the premises prior to the date of closing.

The defendants’ counterclaim, which was dismissed prior to the trial, need not be reinstated. It is apparent from the record that whatever misrepresentation the plaintiff may have made when the contract of sale was signed regarding its title to the property did not contribute to the delay in closing.

*707We have reviewed the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Joan Katzeff, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, 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 officers 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) 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



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial
reporting; and



5. The small business issuers other certifying officers
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;



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.



Date: May 13, 2005



|                        |  |                 
|----------------------- |  | ----------------
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ Joan Katzeff
|Joan Katzeff, President
# C_2009170EN.01001201.xml

| 22.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5522 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Acciona Energia Internacional/Amper)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 170/03

On 16 July 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5522. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5522. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Caremark
Rx, Inc. (the "Corporation") for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, an Executive
Vice President and the Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies that:



|/s/HOWARD A. MCLUREHoward A. McLure
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

V. 

WINSTON SHROUT, 

Defendant. 

Jones, Judge 

3:15-cr-00438-JO 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on defendant's unopposed motion to stay orders directing him 

to selfsunender on January 7, 2019. [# 182] Defendant's appeal of his conviction and sentence is 

before the Court of Appeals in CA No. 18-30228. In the Comt of Appeals case, defendant filed a 

motion for release pending appeal. In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 9, the comt's orders [# 180 

and # 181] directing defendant to surrender to FCI Sheridan on January 7, 2019 are stayed until the 

Court of Appeals rules on defendant's motion for release pending appeal. In the event the Comt of 

Appeals denies defendant's motion for release pending appeal, defendant shall surrender to FCI 

Sheridan on the first Monday following the denial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ;J{iday of December, 2018. 

1 ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 183 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 1