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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 42600 & 42959

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBERT ALLAN ARMFIELD,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 669

Filed: October 21, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of five years, for felony domestic violence, affirmed; appeal from 

order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, dismissed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Robert Allan Armfield pled guilty to felony domestic violence. I.C. §§ 18-918(2) and 

18-903(a). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an 

allegation that he was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Armfield to a unified 

term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years. Armfield filed an 

I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Armfield appeals.
2

In Docket No. 42600, Armfield asserts that his 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 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.

In Docket No. 42959, Armfield appealed, asserting that the district court erred in denying 

his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. In his brief on appeal, Armfield acknowledges that 

no additional information was submitted in support of his Rule 35 and, therefore, waives this 

issue on appeal. Accordingly, we do not address this issue and Armfield’s appeal is dismissed. 

Therefore, Armfield’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed and the appeal 

from his Rule 35 motion is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. (together, the Company), does hereby certify that to the
undersigneds knowledge:

1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 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
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                       
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2009 |  | /s/ Leigh Ginter                      
|                      |  | Leigh Ginter  Chief Financial Officer
|                      |  | (Chief Accounting Officer)            

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



29
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard L. Browdy, President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to
19 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | 2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of and for the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                 |  |  |  |                                                         
|----- |  | --------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | August 15, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Richard L. Browdy                                   
|      |  |                 |  |  |  | Richard L. Browdy, President and Chief Financial Officer
|      |  |                 |  |  |  | (Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5436 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5436

  To prohibit the Minerals Management Service from issuing permits or 
 environmental or safety waivers for any deepwater drilling rig in the 
   Gulf of Mexico until the discharge of oil from the last Deepwater 
  Horizon well has stopped and a congressional committee has issued a 
    report finding the cause of the explosion on and sinking of the 
                           Deepwater Horizon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 27, 2010

 Mr. Buchanan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Minerals Management Service from issuing permits or 
 environmental or safety waivers for any deepwater drilling rig in the 
   Gulf of Mexico until the discharge of oil from the last Deepwater 
  Horizon well has stopped and a congressional committee has issued a 
    report finding the cause of the explosion on and sinking of the 
                           Deepwater Horizon.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND WAIVERS FOR DEEPWATER 
              OIL DRILLING IN GULF OF MEXICO.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Minerals Management Service may not issue any 
permit or grant any waiver of any environmental or safety requirement 
or restriction under any Federal law for any deepwater drilling rig in 
the Gulf of Mexico before the date on which--
            (1) the discharge of oil from the last well drilled by the 
        semi-submersible drilling rig Deepwater Horizon has stopped; 
        and
            (2) a Committee of the House of Representatives or the 
        Senate has issued a report that includes a finding of the cause 
        of the explosion on and sinking of the semi-submersible 
        drilling rig Deepwater Horizon.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the term ``deepwater drilling rig'' means an offshore 
        facility used for drilling in, exploring for, developing, or 
        producing oil in water that is greater than 1,000 feet in 
        depth; and
            (2) the term ``offshore facility'' has the meaning that 
        term has in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et 
        seq.).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007265EN.01000201.xml

| 7.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 265/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4808 — CVC/Charterhouse/PHL/AA/Saga)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 265/03)

On 7 September 2007, 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32007M4808. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4808. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00031

- CV

___________________________

Origina l P roceeding 153rd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 153

- 321452

- 20

Before W allach, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### M ILTON 

### F ABER 

### , Relator2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus , real parties in

interests ’ responses, relator ’ s reply, and real party in interest ’ s reply and i s of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered : February 17, 2022
#### WILLIAM EDGAR BOSWELL, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 8117

May 13, 1975

534 P.2d 1263

*William Edgar Boswell,*in *pro per,*Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Groves,*Chief Deputy Attorney General, and *Michael Fondi,*District Attorney, Carson City, for Respondent.

*285OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

William Edgar Boswell, after pleading guilty to second degree murder, was sentenced on November 15, 1956, to serve “not less than 10 years nor more than life.” Parole, granted in 1966, was revoked in 1973. Thereafter, Boswell filed an in *pro per*petition for habeas corpus contending, *inter alia,*the actions of the parole board in the revocation proceedings violated his constitutional rights.

The district court neither processed the petition nor ordered a return thereto; and, without hearing or appointment of counsel, summarily denied habeas relief. An appeal has been perfected. Having reviewed the record we, *sua sponte,*conclude the summary action by the district court constitutes reversible error.1

Parole revocation proceedings involve the loss of “limited freedom” and such loss is sufficiently “grievous” to come within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).

Whether Boswell was afforded the Due Process procedural protections contemplated by, and delineated in, *Morrissey*was not considered by the trial court, even though the allegations contained in the habeas petition raised the issues. Under such circumstances, the district judge should have granted the writ without delay (see NRS 34.390 et seq.; NRS 34.430 et seq.); and, his failure to do so compels us to reverse and remand. The First Judicial District Court, Carson City, is instructed; (1) to issue the writ forthwith; (2) to order a return thereto; (3) to appoint counsel; and, (4) pursuant to NRS 34.460, grant an immediate hearing and resolve the allegations set forth in the petition for habeas corpus.

Remittitur shall issue forthwith.

1

Mr. Justice Batjer took no part in the deliberation of this case.
# L_2006414EN.01007401.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 414/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 414/74

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2036/2006

of 21 December 2006

fixing the amount of private storage aid for certain fishery products in the 2007 fishing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/2000 of 21 December 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards the grant of private storage aid for certain fishery products (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The aid should not exceed the sum of technical and financial costs recorded in the Community during the fishing year proceeding the year in question. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The aid should not exceed the sum of technical and financial costs recorded in the Community during the fishing year proceeding the year in question.

| (2) | To discourage long-term storage, to shorten payment times and to reduce the burden of controls, private storage aid should be paid in one single instalment. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

To discourage long-term storage, to shorten payment times and to reduce the burden of controls, private storage aid should be paid in one single instalment.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the Management Committee for Fishery Products, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the Management Committee for Fishery Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 2007 fishing year the amount of private storage aid, referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, for the products listed in Annex II to that Regulation shall be as follows:

| — | first month | : | EUR 210 per tonne, |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | second month | : | EUR 0 per tonne. |

—

first month

:

EUR 210 per tonne,

—

second month

:

EUR 0 per tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2006.

For the Commission

Joe BORG

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22. Regulation as amended by the 2003 Act of Accession.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 326, 22.12.2000, p. 30.

2

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131611 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131611 

 COA: 269771 

Ottawa CC: 04-028504-FC 

MICHAEL SCOTT ENGDAHL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 30, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2006 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006, I, Tim T. Hart, Chief Financial Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. at the dates indicated.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|               |  |  |  |                                                                                             
|-------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|March 16, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    TIM T. HART                                                                          
|               |  |  |  | Tim T. Hart                                                                                 
|               |  |  |  | Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. and will be retained by Maxwell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7770
DAVID LEE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-761-1) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 27, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: David Lee Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. SeeSmith v. North Carolina , No. CA-02-761-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Nov. 6, 2002; entered Nov. 7, 2002). We deny Smith’s motion to relieve the state court judge from his judicial obligations. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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



In connection with Annual Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Cesar M. Garcia, Chief Executive 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:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: April 28, 2004



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Cesar M. Garcia    
|Cesar M. Garcia        
|Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to IRIS International, Inc. and will be retained by IRIS International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      11,262
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               92,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,129
<INVENTORY>                                 24,632
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           138,121
<PP&E>                                     294,636
<DEPRECIATION>                             113,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             368,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       76,916
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 265,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               368,115
<SALES>                                    237,256
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           237,256
<CGS>                                      158,818
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              158,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             28,599
<INCOME-TAX>                                 9,544
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         19,378
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                19,378
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.21
        















</TABLE>