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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46277

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARISSA SHANNEL DEMPSEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: January 30, 2019

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Nancy Baskin, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twelve years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two years, for aiding and abetting grand theft, 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 HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Marissa Shannel Dempsey pled guilty to aiding and abetting grand theft. I.C. §§ 18-

2403(1), 18-2407, 18-2409, and 18-204. In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were 

dismissed. The district court sentenced Dempsey to a unified term of twelve years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of two years, to run concurrently with an unrelated sentence. 

Dempsey appeals, claiming 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 
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, Dempsey’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, David Teitel, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Alere 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.



|                     |  |                                     
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2012 |  | /s/ David Teitel                    
|                     |  | David Teitel Chief
Financial Officer
11-759-cv

Heaphy v. Webster Central School District 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER 

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,

2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.

WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON

ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 14th 4 day of February, two thousand twelve.

5

6 PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 

12

13 JENNIFER HEAPHY, 

14

15 Plaintiff-Appellant,

16

17 -v.- 11-759-cv

18

19 WEBSTER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,

20

21 Defendant-Appellee.

22 

23

24 FOR APPELLANT: STEVEN E. LAPRADE (Christine A. Agola, on

25 the brief), Christine A. Agola, PLLC,

26 Brighton, N.Y.

27

28 FOR APPELLEE: MICHAEL P. McCLAREN (Ryan G. Smith, on

29 the brief), Webster Szanyi LLP, Buffalo,

30 N.Y. 

31

32 Appeal from the United States District Court for the

33 Western District of New York (Larimer, J.).
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

2 AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District

3 Court for the Western District of New York be AFFIRMED. 

4 Appellant appeals from a judgment of the United States

5 District Court for the Western District of New York

6 (Larimer, J.) that granted Defendant-Appellee Webster

7 Central School District’s (the “School District”) motion for

8 summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with

9 the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

10 presented for review.

11 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment

12 de novo and draw all factual inferences in favor of the non13 moving party. See Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc.,

14 532 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir. 2008). “Summary judgment is

15 appropriate only if there is no genuine dispute as to any

16 material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

17 matter of law.” Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d

18 352, 358 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

19 For substantially the same reasons set forth in the

20 district court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision and

21 order, we conclude that the district court properly granted

22 summary judgment to the School District on Plaintiff-
3

1 Appellant Jennifer Heaphy’s claims of unlawful

2 discrimination and retaliation. 

3 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

4 court is hereby AFFIRMED.

5

6 FOR THE COURT:

7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

8

9
# Exhibit 32.2

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Transport Corporation of America, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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

|Date:   November 4, 2005 | /s/   KEITH R. KLEIN                                               
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Keith R. KleinChief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer

---
Case 1:07-cv-05423-AKH Document 7 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05423-AKH Document 7 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
   
                                                               EXHIBIT 10(r)

                          WAIVER OF BREACH OF COVENANT

     This Waiver relates to a credit facility pursuant to a Credit Agreement 
dated as of March 31, 1995 (as amended to date, the "Credit Agreement") 
between Nuclear Metals, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation ("Nuclear Metals"), 
Carolina Metals, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Carolina Metals" and together 
with Nuclear Metals, the "Borrowers"), and State Street Bank and Trust 
Company, a Massachusetts company (the "Bank").

     WHEREAS, lack of business at Carolina Metals's South Carolina facility 
is expected to result in losses for the current fiscal year, and

     WHEREAS, the Borrower's auditors have advised that, under the 
circumstances, such losses should be recognized in the fiscal year ended 
September 30, 1996 (the "Write-off"), and

     WHEREAS, certain reserves in the approximate amount of $3.3 million have 
been reclassified from long term reserves to inventory reserves (the 
"Reclassification"), and

     WHEREAS, the Write-off and the Reclassification will result in Borrowers 
being out of compliance with the covenants in the Credit Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, the Bank is willing to waive such noncompliance to the extent 
that it is attributable to the Write-off and the Reclassification, and

     WHEREAS, the Borrowers and the Bank intend to continue the relationship 
existing under the Credit Agreement,

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

     1.   The Bank hereby waives any failure to comply with covenants which 
results from the Write-off and the Reclassification, as of September 30, 1996 
and subsequently, and agrees, until the parties agree to new covenants as set 
forth herein, compliance will be measured assuming that the Write-off and the 
Reclassification had not occurred.
    


<PAGE>

    2.   The Bank and the Borrowers will agree upon revised covenants 
consistent with the Company's business plans and such that the Company's 
anticipated performance will allow it to remain in compliance at such time as 
Borrowers have prepared and delivered a business plan to the Bank and the 
Bank has had the opportunity to review it.

     3.   Except as set forth herein, the Credit Agreement, as amended to 
date, shall remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed below:

                                        NUCLEAR METALS, INC.

                                        By:   /s/ James M. Spiezio
                                            --------------------------



                                        CAROLINA METALS, INC.



                                        By:   /s/ James M. Spiezio
                                            --------------------------



                                        STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY



                                        By:  /s/ William R. Dewey, IV
                                            --------------------------
                                              William R. Dewey, IV
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant
to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of National Presto Industries,
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
ended October 2, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: November 11, 2005

/s/ R. F. Lieble  R. F. Lieble,Chief Financial Officer


---
(104 So. 918)

#### Ennis SISK et al. v. STATE.

(8 Div. 714.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 21, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; James E. Horton, Jr., Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
# Exhibit 32.1

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Transport Corporation of America, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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

|Date:   November 4, 2005 | /s/   MICHAEL J. PAXTON                                         
|------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Michael J. PaxtonChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-93,497-01 & 93,497-02

EX PARTE MUNDRO ROBINSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 2010-426,709-A & 2010-427,611-A IN 

THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT FROM LUBBOCK COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of two charges of possession with intent to deliver a controlled

substance and sentenced to twenty-five years’imprisonment in each case. He filed these applications

for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded them to this

Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

Applicant contends that he was denied his right to an appeal because counsel incorrectly

advised him that his guilty plea meant that he waived all rights to file an appeal although he could

have challenged the voluntariness of his plea, his plea waiver, and allegedly erroneous duplicate

court costs on direct appeal. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Ex

parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Jones v. State, 98 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. Crim.
2

App. 2003). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum

for findings of fact. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial

counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. In developing the record, the trial court may use any 1

means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine

whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the

trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

26.04. If counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of

counsel’s name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant

was denied his right to an appeal because trial counsel improperly advised him regarding his appeal

rights. The trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in

response to Applicant’s claims.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: March 16, 2022

Do not publish

 If a defendant decides to appeal his conviction, trial counsel rather than appellate 1

counsel has the duty to ensure that written notice of appeal is filed with the trial court. Jones, 98

S.W.3d at 703.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12614]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


Sunshine Act Notice

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Thursday, May 31, 2001.

PLACE: Board Conference Room, Sixth Floor, 1615 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20419.

STATUS: The meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Board adjudication of the Office of Personnel 
Management's Request for Reconsideration in Azdell and Fishman v. 
Office of Personnel Management, DC-300A-97-0368-R-1 and DC-300A-97-
0369-R-1.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Matthew Shannon, Counsel to 
the Clerk of the Board, (202) 653-7200.

    Dated: May 15, 2001.
Robert E. Taylor,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-12614 Filed 5-15-01; 3:18 pm]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-M
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

---

FORM 8-K

---

CURRENT REPORT



Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of Report: June 30, 2006

(Date of earliest event reported)

---

IMAGE SENSING SYSTEMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Commission File Number: 0-26056

|Minnesota                                      | 41-1519168                       
|---------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.)



500 Spruce Tree Centre

1600 University Avenue West

St. Paul, Minnesota 55104

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)



(651) 603-7700

(Registrants telephone number, including area code)



Not Applicable

(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

---



Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



oWritten communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)



oSoliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))





---

Item 5.02   Departure of Directors
or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Principal Officers.

On
June 30, 2006, Richard P. Braun advised the Board of Directors of Image Sensing Systems,
Inc. (the Company) that he would be resigning from the Companys Board of
Directors effective July 5, 2006.

SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



| | IMAGE SENSING SYSTEMS, INC.
| | ---------------------------
| |                            
| |                            





Date:  July 6, 2006

---
EXHIBIT 12

                      UNITED GROCERS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          Schedule of Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


                                                  For the Years Ended
                                     Oct.2              Oct. 3
                                      1998                1997
Computation of
  Earnings:

Pretax Income                      $12,781,000        $(11,278,000)

Plus Patronage
 Dividend                               -0-                 -0-
Less
 capitalized
  interest                              -0-                 -0-

Total Earnings                      12,781,000         (11,278,000)

Computation of
  Fixed Charges:
Total
 Interest
  Expense                           13,585,000          16,307,000
Interest factor
 in rental
  Expense                            9,873,925          12,949,000

Total
 Fixed
  Charges (1)                       23,458,925          29,256,000

Total Earnings
 and Fixed
  Charges (2)                       36,239,925          17,978,000

Ratio of
 Earnings
  to Fixed
   Charges
    (2)/(1)                               1.54                0.61


Notes:
   A.  Adjusted  income used to compute  the ratio of  adjusted  income to fixed
charges  represents  net income to which has been added income taxes,  patronage
dividends  and  fixed  charges.   Fixed  charges  consist  of  interest  on  all
indebtedness and that portion of rentals considered to be the interest factor.

   B. Interest  portion of buildings and equipment rental expense was calculated
at 60% for each year.
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 15 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 15 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 15 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.2





                            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 United Financial Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paula
J. Delaney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



/s/ Paula J. Delaney
-------------------------
Paula J. Delaney
Chief Financial Officer



May 12, 2005
##### 



SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc.
Management Incentive Plan
 Section 1. Purpose
  Section 2. Definitions
  2.1.
    
    Administrator: The Committee and its delegates to the extent of such
delegation.2.2
    
    Award Opportunity: An opportunity awarded by the Administrator to a
Participant to earn a benefit under the Plan for a specified Plan Year.2.3
    
    Award Payment Amount: The amount, if any, determined by the
Administrator to be payable by the Company to a Participant in respect of the
Participants Award Opportunity for a specified Plan Year.2.4.
    
    Base Salary: For any Participant for any Plan Year or portion
thereof, the Participants base contract salary from the Company for such period.2.5.
    
    Board: The Board of Directors of the Company.2.6.
    
    Code: The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and in effect
from time to time.2.7.
    
    Committee: The Compensation Committee of the Board.2.8.
    
    Company: SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. and its successors and
assigns.2.9.
    
    Eligible Employee: A management employee of the Employer who is
determined to be eligible pursuant to Section 3 below.2.10.
    
    Employer: The Company and its subsidiaries.2.11.
    
    Participant: For any Plan Year, an Eligible Employee who is
selected by the Administrator to be given an Award Opportunity for the Plan Year.2.12.
    
    Plan: The SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. Management Incentive Plan
set forth herein, as it may be amended and in effect from time to time.2.13.
    
    Plan Year: The Companys fiscal year.
 1




---



##### 



Section 3. Eligibility; Participants
  Section 4. Awards
 Grant of Award Opportunities
 Establishment of Performance Goals
 Adjustments
 Determination of Award Payment Amounts
 Board Authority
 2




---



##### 



Section 5. Payment of Awards
 Requirement of Continued Employment
 Time of Payment
 Form of Payment
 Section 6. Administration
  Section 7. Miscellaneous
 Tax Withholding
 Amendment or Termination
 Other Payments or Awards
 Unfunded Plan
 No liability
 3




---



##### 



No Right of Employment
 Section Headings.
 Exemption from Section 409A
 Severability
 Governing Law
 Effective Date
 4