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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39428

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SASHA DEE MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 563

Filed: July 25, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge. 

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

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Sasha Dee Martinez was convicted of attempting to obtain a controlled substance by 

fraud, Idaho Code §§ 37-2732(a)(3), 18-306. The district court imposed a unified sentence of 

two years with one year determinate and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained 

jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Martinez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion, which the district court denied. Martinez appeals from the denial of his Rule 35 motion.

A Rule 35 motion is a request for leniency which is addressed to the sound discretion of 

the sentencing 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 
2

subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 

201, 159 P.3d 838 (2007). Our focus on review is upon the nature of the offense and the 

character of the offender. State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 772, 653 P.2d 1183, 1184 (Ct. App. 

1982). Where a sentence is not illegal, the appellant must show that it is unreasonably harsh in 

light of the primary objective of protecting society and the related goals of deterrence, 

rehabilitation and retribution. State v. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 145, 814 P.2d 401, 405 

(1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992); 

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

Having reviewed the record, including the new information submitted with Martinez’s 

Rule 35 motion, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the motion. 

Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Martinez’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2356

US Industrial Sales LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Application Technology Research: Wooster, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Departments
                        Agricultural Engineering
                                    Entomology
                                    Horticulture
                                    Plant Pathology
                                    IR-4 programSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Wooster, Ohio Application Technology Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
II 

Calendar No. 654 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4328 

[Report No. 117–263] 

To modify the fire management assistance cost share, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2022 

Mr. PADILLA (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LUJA ́N, Mr. HEINRICH, Mrs. 

MURRAY, Mr. SULLIVAN, and Ms. ROSEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

DECEMBER 15, 2022 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, with amendments 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To modify the fire management assistance cost share, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fire Suppression Im5 provement Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4328 RS

1 SEC. 2. FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COST SHARE AND 

2 ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 420 of the Robert T. 

4 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

5 (42 U.S.C. 5187) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub7 section (g) (f); and 

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(e) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of assist11 ance under this section shall be not less than 75 percent 

12 of the eligible cost of such assistance.’’. assistance. 

13 ‘‘(f) ELIGIBLE EXPENSE.—A State or local govern14 ment may use assistance provided under this section for 

15 the predeployment of assets and resources.’’. 

16 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub17 section (a) shall only apply to amounts appropriated on 

18 or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

19 SEC. 3. RULEMAKING. 

20 Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment 

21 of this Act, the President, acting through the Adminis22 trator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

23 shall conduct and complete a rulemaking to provide cri24 teria for the circumstances under which the Administrator 

25 may recommend the President increase the Federal cost 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4328 RS

1 share for section 420 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

2 Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5187). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 654 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4328 

[Report No. 117–263] 

A BILL 

To modify the fire management assistance cost 

share, and for other purposes. 

DECEMBER 15, 2022 

Reported with amendments 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


In connection with Spectrum Group International, Inc.'s (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2013 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 result of operations of the Company.




Date:October 28, 2013/s/ Paul SothName:Paul SothTitle:Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
** **

** **

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-54356) of our report dated, January23, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of M-SystemsFlash Disk Pioneers Ltd. included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F/A) for theyear ended December 31, 2002. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
| Tel-Aviv, Israel |   | KOST, FORER GABBAY & KASIERER     |
|------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| January 21, 2004 |   | A Member of  Ernst & Young Global |

 

 

 

 

****
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of TechLite, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I,
J.D. Arvidson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my
knowledge:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); 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:  May  20,  2004

                              /s/  J.D.  Arvidson
                              --------------------------------------------------
                              J.D.  Arvidson
                              Chairman  and  Chief  Executive  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-QSB  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.





                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
EXHIBIT 32.2**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/Afor the period ending April 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Ullrich E. Porzig, Senior Vice President — Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: February 21, 2006            s/ Ullrich E. Porzig         Ullrich E. Porzig    Senior Vice President,    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0179 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DOMINGO JOSE PALAFOX,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 20, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Beth Baker Justice, Montana Supreme Court August 13 2021

08/13/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0179
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5766]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service


Availability of Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction 
Diagrams

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.

ACTION: Publication of New North American Datum (NAD) 83 Outer 
Continental Shelf Official Protraction Diagrams (OPD's).

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

    Notice is hereby given that effective with this publication, the 
following NAD 83-based outer continental shelf (OCS) Official 
Protraction Diagrams (OPD's) for the Gulf of Alaska/Yakutat area are on 
file and available in the Alaska OCS Region office, Anchorage, Alaska. 
They reflect current baseline and boundary information portrayed on a 
metric NAD 83 cadastre. These OPD's should be used for the Offshore 
Program within the Gulf of Alaska/Yakutat area.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Description                             Date        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NP 06-08, Cordova.................................  September 1, 1994.  
NP 07-07, Bering Glacier..........................  September 1, 1994.  
NO 06-02, Middleton Island........................  September 1, 1994.  
NO 07-01, Icy Bay.................................  September 1, 1994.  
NO 07-02, Yakutat.................................  September 1, 1994.  
NO 07-03, (Unnamed)...............................  September 1, 1994.  
NO 07-04, Alsek Valley............................  September 1, 1994.  
NO 08-03, Mt. Fairweather.........................  September 1, 1994.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDRESSES: Copies of these OPD's may be purchased for $2.00 each from 
the Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, 949 East 36th 
Avenue, Room 603, Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4302, Attention: Library, 
(907) 271-6435.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Technical comments or questions pertaining to these maps should be 
directed to Leasing and Environment, Chief, Leasing Activities Section, 
at the address stated above, or at (907) 271-6691.

    Dated: February 22, 1995.
Judith C. Gottlieb,
Regional Director, Alaska OCS Region.
[FR Doc. 95-5766 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
15-1518 

United States v. Jones 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE 

SECOND CIRCUIT

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

3rd day of October, two thousand sixteen. 

Before: John M. Walker, Jr., 

 Guido Calabresi, 

 Peter W. Hall, 

 Circuit Judges. 

_______________________________ 

United States of America, 

 Appellee, 

v. 

Corey Jones, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

ORDER

Docket No. 15-1518 

 ________________________________ 

 It is hereby ORDERED that, pending the Supreme Court’s disposition in Beckles v. 

United States, No. 15-8544, this Court’s opinion, issued on July 21, 2016, is VACATED and 

Appellee’s petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is held in abeyance. Following the 

disposition in Beckles, Appellee will be permitted to re-file the petition for rehearing, which may 

include arguments based on the decision in Beckles, and Appellant will be permitted to file a 

response. 

 

For the Court: 

 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

 Clerk of Court
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f App eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 08-1569

PAUL SIMMONS; PEDRO VALENTIN; DENNIS BELDOTTI, Plaintiffs, Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

v . WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN, in his capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

Defendant, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on July 31, 2009 is amended as follows: On page 41, line 15, "regulatory rather then" should be replaced with "regulatory rather than"
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3034

Can Components Corp:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
#### Son-Oak Rhee, Respondent, v Leonard L. Meyers et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered August 17, 1989, granting partial summary judgment in lieu of complaint on an instrument for the payment of money only and referring the question of damages for a hearing, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Defendant Leonard L. Meyers and his late wife, Linda S. Markis Meyers, agreed in writing, on January 1, 1983, to accept investment moneys from plaintiff which would earn at least 12% per annum, with repayment of funds on demand within 24 hours for amounts up to $10,000, and within seven business days for greater amounts. The agreement further provided for the rendering of monthly statements reflecting the total funds invested and interest accrued. Such statements were issued to plaintiff over the next six years, during which time plaintiff both added and withdrew funds from her account. The last monthly statement was rendered for the period ending January 31, 1989, reflecting a credit balance of $302,602.85. Linda Markis Meyers died during the month of January 1989. When plaintiff’s demands for repayment of her funds were ignored, she commenced this action by service of a summons and notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint (CPLR 3213).

Leonard Meyers denied knowledge of the subsequent history of the account after January 1983, disclaimed any indication of such large business investments anywhere in the business records of his late wife for the two years prior to her death, and pointed to the fact that plaintiff’s income tax returns for 1985 and 1986 failed to reflect anywhere near the interest supposedly earned on her account during those years.

The question of income taxes is, of course, a matter between plaintiff and the Internal Revenue Service. This court is concerned solely with the question of whether this action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only. Such an action must be based on something more than simply an account stated *(Interman Indus. Prods. v R. S. M. Electron*
      *398
      *Power,*37 NY2d 151), although the evidence thereof cannot be drawn from sources outside the agreement itself *(see, Goodman v Solow,*27 AD2d 920). But where the account stated is consonant with the fixed terms of the agreement, this may be taken as an obligation warranting the accelerated procedure under CPLR 3213 *(see, Maglich v Saxe, Bacon & Bolan,*97 AD2d 19), especially where the rendering of statements in connection with that account indicates a history of transactional activity *(Ace Off. Cleaning Corp. v Brodsky, Hopf & Adler,*81 Misc 2d 170). Such an acknowledgment of an obligation upon an account stated is a promise for the payment of money only. *(See, Wickham Contr. Co. v Gevyn Constr. Corp.,*64 AD2d 982.) Periodic statements, reflecting activity as well as the state of the account, together with the written 1983 agreement, unequivocally establish the obligation as an instrument for the payment of money only. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Smith, JJ.