alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14

- 1261 Filed December 23, 2015

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. SHEVIN DARNELL CASTON , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley J. Harris , Judge.

Shevin Darnell Caston appeals from the concurrent sentences imposed

. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith , State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch , Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kelli Huser , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.2

POTTERFIEL D, Presiding Judge. Shevin Darnell Caston appeals from the concurrent sentences imposed following his pleas of guilty to the offenses of felon in possession of a firearm and
carry ing weapons , contending the district court failed to provide adequate reasons for the sentences imposed. A sentence that conforms to the statute “is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consi deration of inappropriate matters.” State v. Formaro , 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). If we are not able to review the district court’s reasoning , we are unable to determine if there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Thacker , 862 N.W.2d 402, 40 7 (Iowa 2015). Thus, Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) requires the district court to state its reason s for selecting a particular sentence. “A statement may be sufficient, even if terse and succinct, so l ong as the brevity of the court’ s statem ent does not prevent review of the exercise of the trial court’ s sentencing discretion.” State v. Johnson , 445 N.W.2d 337, 343 (Iowa 1989) . Boilerplate reasons alone are not sufficient. See State v. Lumadue , 622 N.W.2d 302, 304 (Iowa 2001). Here, th e district court noted Caston had previous involvement in “dangerous activities , ” had served a prior sentence of incarceration that “should be enough to send a message to you , ” and upon release had again chosen to carry a firearm knowing he was not permitt ed to do so. The court stated that “for the protection of society, it’s just necessary that you serve some term of incarceration.” The court observed, “[T] here ’ s simply consequences for what you did, and in this case it ’ s going to prison. ” The sentencin g order states that this3

particular sentence was “most likely to protect society and rehabilitate the defendant based upon the nature of the offense, defendant’s prior record, and the recommendation of the parties and the [pr esentence investigation report]

. ” We are not prevented from reviewing the district court’s reasoning and we find no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

74 

KA 09-01202 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CYRESS JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG,

JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (JOHN PATRICK

FEROLETO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny

M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered May 27, 2009. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the first degree (two

counts), robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is 

unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury

verdict of two counts of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law §

140.30 [2], [4]) and one count each of robbery in the first degree (§

160.15 [4]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [2] [a]),

defendant contends that Supreme Court failed to comply with CPL 310.30

in responding to three notes from the jury during its deliberation. 

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention with

respect to the second and third jury notes. We conclude that the

court provided defense counsel with notice of the content thereof and

with the substance of the court’s intended response (cf. People v

Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931), and defendant failed to object at that time

(see People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516; People v Cooley, 48 AD3d

1091, lv denied 10 NY3d 861; see also People v DeRosario, 81 NY2d 801,

803). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court was not required

to read the contents of those notes verbatim into the record (see

generally People v Kadarko, 14 NY3d 426, 428-429). We conclude that

defendant waived his contention with respect to the first jury note by

consenting to allow the court to respond to requests for exhibits

without consulting the attorneys (see People v Ming Yuen, 222 AD2d

613, lv denied 88 NY2d 851). In any event, that contention is without

merit (see id.).

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as

charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we
-2- 74 

KA 09-01202 

reject defendant’s further contention that the verdict is against the

weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490,

495). 

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
Charles Lee DAVIS v. STATE of North Carolina.

No. 30P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2005.

Charles Davis, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 12th day of January 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Buncombe County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of February 2005."
Wdesk | Exhibit






INSTRUMENT OF AMENDMENT TO THE
MDU RESOURCES GROUP, INC.
401(k) RETIREMENT PLAN




The MDU Resources Group, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan (as amended and restated January 1, 2017) (the “K‐Plan”), is hereby amended effective May 1, 2018, as follows:




 
		
	1.
	By adding the following to the table in Section D-1-2 Eligibility to Share in the Profit Sharing Feature of Supplement D-1, Provisions Relating to the Profit Sharing Feature for Certain Participating Affiliates:




	
		
	Participating Affiliate
	Current Effective Date
(Original Effective Date)

	Knife River Corporation – Mountain West
	May 1, 2018
(January 1, 2015)




 


Explanation: This amendment replaces Knife River Corporation – Northwest (the Idaho Division) (“IDAHO”) with Knife River Corporation – Mountain West (KRC-MW) as a Participating Affiliate in the Profit Sharing Feature, effective May 1, 2018, due to the Idaho Division of Knife River Corporation – Northwest being spun off into a separate legal entity. 




		
	2.
	By removing the following entry from the table in Section D-1-2 Eligibility to Share in the Profit Sharing Feature of Supplement D-1, Provisions Relating to the Profit Sharing Feature for Certain Participating Affiliates:




	
		
	Participating Affiliate
	Current Effective Date
(Original Effective Date)

	Knife River Corporation – Northwest (the Idaho Division)
	January 1, 2015




 


Explanation: This amendment removes IDAHO as a Participating Affiliate in the Profit Sharing Feature, effective May 1, 2018, due to IDAHO being spun off into a separate legal entity. 














1







		
	3.
	By removing the second entry in Schedule B and replacing it with the following:




Knife River Corporation – Mountain West (formerly known as Knife River Corporation – Northwest (the Idaho Division) shall make supplemental contributions on behalf of its Davis-Bacon Employees in such amounts as may be necessary to satisfy the Prevailing Wage Law’s required fringe cost without regard to any employer Matching and Profit Sharing Contributions pursuant to Supplement G. 


Effective May 1, 2018.


Explanation: This amendment revises Schedule B to reflect the Davis-Bacon provisions for KRC-MW, effective May 1, 2018, due to IDAHO being spun off into a separate legal entity. 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, MDU Resources Group, Inc., as Sponsoring Employer of the K-Plan, has caused this amendment to be duly executed by a member of the MDU Resources Group, Inc. Employee Benefits Committee on this   25   day of April, 2018.




MDU RESOURCES GROUP, INC.
   EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE






By:  /s/Jason L. Vollmer            
     Jason L. Vollmer, Chairman


2
Presidential Documents

37975 

Federal Register 

Vol. 87, No. 121 

Friday, June 24, 2022 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of June 15, 2022 

Delegation of Authority Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 621 of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State 

the authority under section 506(a)(1) of the FAA to direct the drawdown 

of up to an aggregate value of $350 million in defense articles and services 

of the Department of Defense, and military education and training, to provide 

assistance to Ukraine and to make the determinations required under such 

section to direct such a drawdown. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, June 15, 2022 

[FR Doc. 2022–13745 

Filed 6–23–22; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PREZ DOC 2BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Joe Anthony Romero v. Kroger Company/ KrogerCo./aka Kroger Texas L.P., Sedgwick Claims Management Services

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00049

- CV

Trial court case number: 10CV3689

Trial court: 212th District Court of Galveston County

The trial court’s judgment in the above

- referenced case was signed December 12 , 2011. The appellate record was due to be filed in this Court by January 19, 2012

. See T EX

. R. A P P

. P. 35.1. The clerk’s record has been filed. The reporter’s record has not been filed.

On March 15 , 2012, the Court notified the court reporter, Joni Bono , that the reporter’s

record had not been received and directed that the record be filed no la ter than April 16 , 2012.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1, 37.3(a)(1). The Court directed the reporter to notify the Court by that date if the p roceedings were not recorded, if appellant had not requested that the reporter’s record be prepared , or if appellant had not paid, or made arrangements to pay, the reporter’s fee for preparing the record

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(b)(2). The reporter did not respond.

It is ORDERED that c ourt reporter Joni Bono file in this Court no later than 5:00 p.m., January 22, 2013 either (1) the reporter’s record, with all requested exhibits, or (2) a written statement that the pr oceedings were not recorded, that appellant has not requested that a reporter’s record be prepared , or that appellant has not paid, or made arrangemen ts to pay, the reporter’s fee for preparing the record

. N o motions for extension of time will be entertained absent extraordinary circumstances

. If Joni Bono does not timely file the record or

response as ordered, we will issue an order directing the tria l court to conduct a hearing to

determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Lau ra C. Higley  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 15, 2013
Independent Auditors' Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney World Funds, Inc.:

In planning and performing our audits of the financial statements
of the Smith Barney Global Government Bond and European
Portfolios of Smith Barney World Funds, Inc. (Fund) for the year
ended October 31, 2002, we considered their internal control,
including control activities for safeguarding securities, in
order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply
with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on
internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that errors or fraud in amounts that would be
material in relation to the financial statements being audited
may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees
in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.
However, we noted no matters involving internal control and its
operation, including controls for safeguarding securities that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of October
31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Directors of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.


                                                  KPMG LLP

New York, New York
December 11, 2002
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 491 

To provide for the mandatory revocation of passports of individuals who 

are more than $5,000 in arrears in child support payments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2007 

Mr. MOORE of Kansas (for himself and Mr. MORAN of Kansas) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for the mandatory revocation of passports of 

individuals who are more than $5,000 in arrears in child 

support payments. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MANDATORY REVOCATION OF PASSPORTS OF 

4 INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MORE THAN $5,000 IN 

5 ARREARS IN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS. 

6 Section 452(k) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

7 652(k)) is amended— 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 491 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘, revocation, 

2 or limitation’’ and inserting ‘‘or revocation’’; and 

3 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘may revoke, 

4 restrict, or limit’’ and inserting ‘‘shall revoke’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Jay D. Nielsen, certify that: 

     1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Beef Packing Company,LLC; 

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

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

     a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

     b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

     c)disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

     a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

     b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting. 

|     |  |                                         |
|-----|--|-----------------------------------------|
| By: |  | /s/ Jay D. Nielsen                      |
|     |  | Jay D. Nielsen*Chief Financial Officer* |

Date: January 5, 2007
# C_2016040EN.01000301.xml

| 3.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/3

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 2 February 2016

designating the sites awarded the European Heritage label in 2015

(2016/C 40/03)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Decision No 1194/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 establishing a European Union action for the European Heritage label (1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | On 2 December 2015, the European panel transmitted to the Commission its report regarding the selection process of sites for the attribution of the European Heritage label in 2015 and, taking into account its recommendations, the Commission should designate the sites to be awared the label. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 2 December 2015, the European panel transmitted to the Commission its report regarding the selection process of sites for the attribution of the European Heritage label in 2015 and, taking into account its recommendations, the Commission should designate the sites to be awared the label.

| (2) | In accordance with Article 15 of Decision No 1194/2011/EU, each site awarded the label should be monitored on a regular basis in order to ensure that it continues to meet the criteria and that it respects the project and work plan submitted in its application for the selection, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In accordance with Article 15 of Decision No 1194/2011/EU, each site awarded the label should be monitored on a regular basis in order to ensure that it continues to meet the criteria and that it respects the project and work plan submitted in its application for the selection,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The European Heritage label is awarded to the Neanderthal prehistoric site and Krapina Museum (Croatia), the Olomouc Premyslid Castle and Archdiocesan Museum (Czech Republic), the Sagres promontory (Portugal), the Imperial Palace (Austria), the Historic Ensemble of the University of Tartu (Estonia), the Franz Liszt Academy of Music (Hungary), Mundaneum (Belgium), the World War I Eastern Front Cemetery No 123 (Poland) and the European District of Strasbourg (France).

Done at Brussels, 2 February 2016.

For the Commission

Tibor NAVRACSICS

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 22.11.2011, p. 1.

1

---
# Official Journal C 46E/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CE2012.046.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 46E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5517 February 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CE2012.046.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 46E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5517 February 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2012/C 046E/01 | Position (EU) No 4/2012 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programmeAdopted by the Council on 13 December 2011 | 1 |
| 2012/C 046E/02 | Position (EU) No 5/2012 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2000/75/EC as regards vaccination against bluetongueAdopted by the Council on 15 December 2011 | 15 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

COUNCIL

2012/C 046E/01

Position (EU) No 4/2012 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programmeAdopted by the Council on 13 December 2011

1

2012/C 046E/02

Position (EU) No 5/2012 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2000/75/EC as regards vaccination against bluetongueAdopted by the Council on 15 December 2011

15

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

PHARMACOPEIA DRUG DISCOVERY, INC.

 

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Pharmacopeia Drug Discovery, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Brian M. Posner, Vice President, Finance of the Company,hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Brian  M. Posner |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Brian  M. Posner          |
| Vice  President, Finance  |
|                      |
|                      |
| May 16,  2005        |

 

----