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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41166

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DONALD ROBERT RASOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 453

Filed: April 16, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonner County. Hon. Barbara A. Buchanan, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

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

Donald Robert Rasor was convicted of burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401; and attempted 

grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b)(6), 18-306. The district court sentenced Rasor to 

concurrent unified sentences of five years with two years determinate. Rasor filed an Idaho 

Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Rasor appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 
2

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the 

denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent 

the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new information in support of Rasor’s 

Rule 35 motion was presented, review of the sentence by this Court is precluded. For the 

foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Rasor’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia         
    -  AEE Research Library 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (4.07 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65668-65669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30939]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Finance Docket No. 32816]


Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority--Exemption--From 49 
U.S.C. Subtitle IV <SUP>1

    \1\  This proceeding is embraced in Chicago and North Western 
Transportation Company Abandonment and Discontinuance of Service 
Exemption In Hennepin County, MN, Docket No. AB-1 (Sub-No. 252X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On our own motion the Interstate Commerce Commission exempts 
the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority from the requirements 
of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV in connection with its acquisition of 2.5 
miles of railroad from the Chicago and North Western Railway Company.

DATES: This exemption will be effective January 19, 1996. Petitions to 
stay must be filed by January 4, 1996. Petitions for reconsideration 
must be filed by January 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to Finance Docket No. 32816 to: (1) 
Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce 
Commission,<SUP>2 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423; 
and (2) 

[[Page 65669]]
Petitioner's representative: Byron D. Olsen, 4200 First Bank Place, 601 
Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4302.

    \2\ Legislation to sunset the Commmission on December 31, 1995, 
and transfer remaining functions is now under consideration in 
Congress. Until further notice, parties submitting pleadings should 
continue to use the current name and address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927-5660. 
[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write 
to, call, or pick up in person from: DC News & Data, Inc., Interstate 
Commerce Commission Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 
2229, Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359.

    Decided: December 6, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Owen and 
Commissioner Simmons.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30939 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
#### Catherine E. Lott, Appellant, v. Abram B. Lott, Respondent

Order modified by changing the place of trial to Queens county, and otherwise affirmed; no costs on the appeal. Opinions by

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J.
#### P. F. GARRIS and E. B. GARRIS, Administrators of GEORGE W. GARRIS, v. W. P. HARDY.

(Filed 19 December, 1930.)

Controversy without Action A b — Appeal from judgment in controversy without action will be dismissed when affidavit has not been filed.

An appeal from a judgment in a controversy without action on an agreed statement of facts when the necessary affidavit has not been filed will be dismissed.

Appeal by defendant from *Devin, J.,*3 November, 1930. From Lehoir.

Controversy without action, submitted on agreed statement of facts but unaccompanied by jurisdictional affidavit.

Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

*J. Faison Thomson for plaintiffs.*

*N. W. Outlaw for defendant.*

Pee Cubiam.

Dismissed for failure to accompany agreed statement of facts with necessary affidavit. *Grandy v. Gulley,*120 N. C., 176, 26 S. E., 779; *Pruitt v. Wood,*199 N. C., 788.

Dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 November 14, 2017

Order 

Clerk

November 14, 2017

154668-70(52)

ALLY FINANCIAL, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 154668

v COA: 327815

Ct of Claims: 13-000049-MT

STATE TREASURER, STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

and DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 154669

v COA: 327832

Ct of Claims: 13-000114-MT

STATE TREASURER, STATE OF MICHIGAN,

and DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 154670

v COA: 327833

Ct of Claims: 13-000113-MT

STATE TREASURER, STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

and DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for the temporary admission of out-ofstate attorney Michael J. Bowen to practice pro hac vice in these cases is GRANTED.
#### JAMES R. ROGERS v. JESSE H. RAY.

(Filed 15 October, 1930.)

1. Evidence C c — The burden is on an intervener to prove the issue raised by him.

The burden is on an intervener in an action to prove the issue raised by him.

2. Chattel Mortgages B c — Question of whether lien of conditional sales contract was lost by registration of subsequent chattel mortgage by vendor held for jury.

Upon the question in this case as to whether the lien under a prior conditional sales contract had been lost by the taking of a subsequent chattel mortgage, the evidence was of sufficient probative force, to take the case to the jury, and the refusal of an instruction directing a verdict was proper.

3. Appeal and Error E b — Where instruction does not appear of record it is presumed correct.

The correctness of an instruction not appearing of record is presumed on appeal.

Appeal by intervener, The Mack International Motor Truck Corporation, from *Damiels, J.,*at second May Civil Term, 1930, of War-e.

No error.

The issue submitted to the jury and their answer thereto were as follows: “Is the intervener’s title to the truck superior to plaintiff’s title? Answer: No.”

*8. W. Eason for plaintiff.*

*John N.- Duncan for intervener.*

Per Curiam.

This is a civil action brought- by J ames E. Eogers against Jesse H. Eay, to recover judgment on a note secured by a chattel mortgage and possession of six motor trucks described therein, and claim and delivery proceeding was instituted to recover possession of said motor trucks. The Mack International Motor Truck Corpora*578tion intervened in tbe action and claimed to be the holder of a first lien on one of the six motor trucks, to wit, one 2V2-ton Mack, Model 1-AB, Chassis No. 576855, by reason of a conditional sales agreement recorded prior to the chattel mortgage held by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that the intervener’s first lien had been lost by reason of its having taken and recorded two other conditional sales agreements covering said truck subsequent to the recordation of his chattel mortgage and introduced evidence tending to sustain the contention that the chattel mortgage of plaintiff was a first lien.

“The intervener becomes the actor and the burden of the issue is on the intervener.” *McKinney v. Sutphin,*196 N. C., at p. 321.

The exception and assignment of error made by the intervener: “For that the court erred in overruling the intervener’s motion for a directed verdict in its favor and against the plaintiff when the plaintiff rested his case.” The court below overruled this motion, and in this we see no error.

The evidence was not strong, but more than a scintilla and sufficient to be submitted to the jury. The charge of the court below is not in the record. The presumption is that the court below stated in a plain and correct manner the evidence given in the case and declared and explained the law arising thereon. C. S., 564. In the judgment we find

No error.
H. R. 5441 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To amend the Federal charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United 

States to reflect the service of women in the Armed Forces of the United States. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REFLECTION OF SERVICE OF WOMEN IN THE ARMED 

FORCES IN THE FEDERAL CHARTER OF THE VETERANS 

OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

(a) ORGANIZATION.—Section 230101(a) of title 36, United States 

Code, is amended by striking ‘‘men’’ and inserting ‘‘veterans’’. 

(b) PURPOSES.—Section 230102(3) of such title is amended by 

striking ‘‘widows’’ and inserting ‘‘surviving spouses’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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 this Quarterly Report of Fresh Promise Foods, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2015, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kevin P. Quirk, Principal Executive Officer
of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Such Quarterly Report
    on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2015, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2015, fairly presents, in all material respects,
    the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Dated: April 27,
    2018 | FRESH
    PROMISE FOODS, INC.
|------------------------- | -----------------------------
|                          | (Registrant)                 
|                          |                              
|                          | /s/
    Joe E. Poe, Jr.      
|                          | Joe E. Poe, Jr.              
|                          | Chief
    Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 236 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 63391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30209]





                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 1995 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 63391]]

                Memorandum of December 6, 1995

                
Delegation of Authority Under Section 321(c) of 
                the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
                Act

                Memorandum for the United States Trade Representative

                By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by 
                the Constitution and laws of the United States, 
                including section 301 of title 3 of the United States 
                Code, I hereby delegate to the United States Trade 
                Representative (USTR) the powers vested in the 
                President by section 321(c) of the North American Free 
                Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3391(c)) 
                with respect to the tariff rate quotas for tomatoes.

                In carrying out this authority, USTR shall consult with 
                interested agencies, as well as the National Economic 
                Council and the National Security Council.

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

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, December 6, 1995.

[FR Doc. 95-30209
Filed 12-7-95; 11:51 am]
Billing code 3190-01-M
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




Allonge to Demand Note




     This Allonge to Demand Note is attached to and made a part of that certain Demand Note
(“Note”) executed by Lighting Science Group Corporation (the “Borrower”), dated July 25, 2008,
payable to the order of Bank of Montreal (the “Bank”), in the original principal amount of Twenty
Million and No/100 Dollars ($20,000,000.00).



     For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:



     1. The Note is hereby amended as follows:




The date “July 25, 2009” appearing in the first paragraph of the
Note shall be deleted and replaced with the date “August 24, 2009”.



     2. This Allonge to Demand Note amends the Note as specifically provided herein. All
other provisions of the Note shall not be modified hereby except as expressly set forth
herein.



     3. The Borrower hereby directs the Bank to affix this Allonge to Demand Note
whereupon the Note and this Allonge to Demand Note will become and constitute a single
instrument.



     4. References in the Note to the Bank of Montreal Loan Authorization Agreement
dated as of July 25, 2008 between the Borrower and the Bank (the “Loan Agreement”) shall be
deemed to refer to the Loan Agreement, as amended and as the same may be amended from time
to time.



[Signature Page to Follow]





 









 








     Dated: As of July 24, 2009



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Lighting Science Group Corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Kathryn L. Reynolds
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Kathryn L. Reynolds 	 
	 	 	Its: Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 




     Accepted and Agreed:



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Bank of Montreal

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Denise Sidlo
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Denise Sidlo 	 
	 	 	Its: Director
#### Dubois Bogardus, Respondent, v. The Town of Wappinger, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4107 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/04/19 10:56:49 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4107 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/04/19 10:56:49 Page 2 of

2
LaSalle Bank
      N.A.135 South
      LaSalle StreetSuite
      1625Chicago, IL
      60603Global
      Securities and Trust Services







Annual Statement of
Compliance




VIA: EMAIL




Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors,
Inc.


250 Vesey Street


4 World Financial Center, 10th Floor


New York, New York 10080




Home Loan Services, Inc.


150 Allegheny Center Mall


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212




Re:
            First
      Franklin Mortgage Loan TrustMortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series
      2007-FF1







Reference is
made to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of
January 1, 2007, among Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., as depositor,
Home Loan Services, Inc., as servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association, as
trustee, relating to First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan
Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-FF1




I, Barbara L. Marik,
a Senior Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee hereby
certify that:




(1) A review of
the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year and of the
performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
supervision; and




(2) To the
best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year or
a portion thereof.






Date: February 27, 2008




LaSalle Bank National Association,
as Trustee






/s/ Barbara L. Marik


Barbara L. Marik


Senior Vice President
**Exhibit      32.1 **

**Certification      **

**of      **

**Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer **

|                              |                                                                                  |                                             |
|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                May 14, 2007 | By:                                                                         | /s/                Daniel Greenleaf    |
|                              | Daniel                GreenleafPresident                & Chief Executive Officer |

|                              |                                                             |                                             |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                May 14, 2007 | By:                                                    | /s/                Brian Lenz     |
|                              | Brian                Lenz Chief                Financial Officer |

----
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Automatic Determinations |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Office of the Chief Actuary | Benefit Amounts with Limited Applicability |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified Thursday Oct 29, 2009 | Need Larger Text? |
#### Harry Quell, Plaintiff, v. Amalie Hermann, Special Guardian, Defendant.

Judgment l'or plaintiff, upon submitted case, that the title is not good.

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
#### Job Sidebottam v. Julia Donovan.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with ten dollars costs.