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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1611 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1611

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage 
 penalty with regard to income limits for the IRA deduction for active 
                     participants in pension plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2001

 Mr. Gallegly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage 
 penalty with regard to income limits for the IRA deduction for active 
                     participants in pension plans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage IRA Fairness Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN PHASEOUT OF IRA DEDUCTION 
              FOR ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN CERTAIN PENSION PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 219(g)(3)(B) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to applicable dollar amount) is amended 
to read as follows:
                            ``(i) In the case of a taxpayer filing a 
                        joint return, the applicable dollar amount for 
                        a taxable year shall be 200 percent of the 
                        dollar amount in effect under clause (ii) for 
                        the taxable year''.
    (b) Range.--Clause (ii) of section 219(g)(2)(A) of such Code is 
amended by striking ``for a taxable year beginning after December 31, 
2006''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 06-cr-218-01-JD

Danilo Deleon

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

70) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: April 13, 2007

cc: Brian Tucker, Esq.

Robert J. Veiga, AUSA

 Donald A. Kennedy, Esq.

 Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Sandra F. Bloomenthal

 Richard F. Monteith, Jr.

 U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00218-JD Document 71 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cr-00218-JD Document 71 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 2
15

A.10. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Size of LoaPercent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,000 $24,000 $49,000 $99,000 $249,000 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 505,044 45,440 57,982 56,385 91,602 137,37Number of loans 20,984 12,881 3,926 1,728 1,272 91Weighted average maturity (months)1 34.18 11.25 16.82 15.43 22.41 44.1

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 17.62 5.46 9.08 9.20 11.10 20.2

Weighted average risk rating3 2.52 2.55 2.62 2.77 2.29 2.6

Weighted average interest rate4 6.71 7.22 7.06 6.59 6.97 6.6

 Standard error5 .08 .08 .22 .21 .16 .1

 Interquartile range6

 75th percentile 7.38 7.79 7.75 7.54 7.65 7.2 25th percentile 6.17 6.60 6.34 5.84 6.35 6.1 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.97 7.34 7.41 6.24 7.12 6.0 Other livestock 6.93 7.89 6.23 7.03 7.50 6.2 Other current operating expenses7 6.78 7.14 7.13 6.59 6.88 6.6

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.62 7.44 7.11 5.75 6.17 7.0 Farm real estate 6.62 7.01 7.31 6.21 6.74 6.6 Other8 6.27 7.82 6.63 8.03 6.85 6.5

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 43.83 51.85 45.00 37.59 30.43 38.5 Under commitment 47.23 65.69 52.00 57.30 54.96 28.2 Callable 19.69 14.67 17.69 18.40 9.52 28.3 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.41 3.49 10.96 6.04 23.56 3.2 Other livestock 7.68 4.81 8.95 22.26 11.49 6.0 Other current operating expenses7 51.24 80.70 65.54 49.87 52.25 51.8

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.29 8.08 7.56 12.92 4.50 5.3 Farm real estate 15.45 1.28 3.20 5.25 2.48 16.6 Other8 12.92 1.63 3.79 3.67 5.71 16.8

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 29.96 7.06 13.97 18.67 15.10 47.3 Other 66.06 84.01 81.41 72.93 82.05 48.3 Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Plaintiff(s)/United States

v. Case No. 1:07-cr-00039-SM

Piyush Patel, et al.

Defendant(s)

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Please take notice that [Michael D. Ramsdell]

has changed the following information contained in the original ECF Registration Form:

[mailing address and telephone number]

Date: 10/28/2012 /s/Michael D. Ramsdell

Michael D. Ramsdell

2096

Ramsdell Law Firm, P.L.L.C.

46 South Main Street

Concord, NH 03301

Phone (603) 856-7536

mramsdell@ramsdelllawfirm.com

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 337 Filed 10/28/12 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 337 Filed 10/28/12 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ARLA JOHNSON, POWER OF 

ATTORNEY FOR JANE S. JOHNSON, 

SOLE SURVIVING TRUSTEE FOR THE 

JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST,

Respondent

v.

MIDNIGHT REALTY, LLC,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 814 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### George A. ADAMOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6486.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1938.

Leonard M. S. Morris, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Arthur R. Rack, of McKeesport, Pa., and Sachs & Caplan, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Wm. H. Eckert and Smith, Buchanan, Scott & Ingersoll, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

' Before BUFFINGTON, THOMPSON, and BIGGS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In the court below the appellant, George A. Adamos, brought suit against the New York Life Insurance Company to recover on several policies of insurance on the life of Andy Adamos. At the conclusion of the testimony, the court gave the jury binding instructions to find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the premiums paid. Thereupon plaintiff took this appeal and the question involved is whether the judge erred in restricting recovery to a return of the premiums and, in effect, refusing to submit to the jury the alleged right to recover the amount of the policies. The basic defense of the insurance company was that the insured was guilty of fraud in the applications for the policies.

The opinion of the trial judge, 22 F. Supp. 162, on the motion for a new trial fully sets forth the facts and the applicable principles of law. By reference thereto we avoid needless repetition, and we find ourselves wholly in accord therewith. An additional opinion by this court would simply be an effort to put in different language what the trial judge has fittingly and fully done. So regarding, we limit ourselves to affirming the judgment below on the judge’s opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert Towle

v. Case No. 06-cv-464-PB

NH Department of Corrections

O R D E R

I hereby recuse myself from presiding over this case as Attorney Michael Sheehan has

filed an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.

March 8, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:06-cv-00464-JL Document 13 Filed 03/08/07 Page 1 of 1
KATHY BLACKMON,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: June 22, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 8, 2021, Kathy Blackmon filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) which meets the Table definition for SIRVA related to the 

influenza vaccine she received on October 9, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶ 1. She further alleged 

that she received the vaccine in the United States, that she suffered the residual effects 

of her SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed 

a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 6-8. The case was 

assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 21-0140V 

UNPUBLISHED 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

On June 21, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.

Specifically, Respondent has concluded “that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth 

in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation 

(“QAI”).” Id. at 5. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53411-53412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21585]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13272-000]


Alaska Village Electric Cooperative; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

September 10, 2008.
    On August 6, 2008, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric 
Project (Old Harbor). Old Harbor would be located on the east fork of 
Mountain Creek, in Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska.

[[Page 53412]]

    The proposed Old Harbor project would consist of: (1) A 4-foot-
high, 30-foot-long concrete diversion; (2) a proposed 6,200-foot-long, 
varying in diameter from 16-inches to 12-inches steel penstock; (3) a 
proposed powerhouse containing a 300-kilowatt generator; (4) a proposed 
tailrace; (5) a proposed 10,700-foot-long transmission line; and 
appurtenant facilities. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project is 
estimated to have an annual generation of 2.2-gigawatt-hours, which 
would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent Petrie, Alaska Village Electric 
Cooperative, 4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, AK 99503; phone (907) 565-
5358.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13272) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21585 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph F. Hoffman

v. Civil No. 06-cv-128-PB

Michael Nolin, et al

O R D E R

After due consideration of the response filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated October 4, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

October 24, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Joseph Hoffman, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00128-PB Document 13 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6745

PERRY C. BRAXTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MR. PRATT; MR. GRIMES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-325)

Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Perry C. Braxton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district

court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. Braxton v. Pratt, No. CA96-325 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

HemCon, Inc.

O R D E R

Marine Polymer, Inc. moves in limine to preclude HemCon,

Inc. from arguing, stating, implying, or presenting any evidence

related to Marine Polymer’s decision not to assert infringement

of certain claims of the ‘245 patent. In support, Marine Polymer

asserts that arguments about non-asserted claims would be

unfounded, prejudicial, and confusing. HemCon agrees that it

will not present evidence, statements, arguments, or implications

to the jury about Marine Polymer’s decision not to assert

infringement of some of the claims in the ‘245 patent. HemCon

reserves the right to introduce that evidence “to the extent that

Marine Polymer opens the door for such introduction, or to the

extent that the Court otherwise deems such evidence, statements,

arguments, or implications to be admissible.”

Conclusion

Marine Polymer’s motion in limine to preclude evidence that

it did not assert infringement of certain claims of the ‘245

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 253 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 2
patent (document no. 197) is granted in accord with HemCon’s

agreement. No questions concerning this subject shall be asked

without prior approval of the court.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 30, 2010

cc: Julie M. Baher, Esquire

Garet K. Galster, Esquire

Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire

Heather E. Krans, Esquire

Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire

Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire

Brian M. Poissant, Esquire

Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire

Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Daniel E. Will, Esquire

Leigh S. Willey, Esquire

2

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 253 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

BALDOMERO VALDEZ-CASTENEDA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10029

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01808-GMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted November 19, 2013*** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Baldomero Valdez-Casteneda appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

FILED

NOV 25 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Ancer L. Haggerty, Senior United States District

Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

 *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Prior to filing an answering brief, the government filed a motion for limited

remand. Because the government does not allege that the district court committed

any error, we deny the government’s motion.

Valdez-Casteneda asserts various claims of procedural error. We review for

plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court did not treat the Guidelines

as mandatory, adequately considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and

Valdez-Casteneda’s variance arguments, and sufficiently explained the sentence to

permit appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-10029
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-49-01-SM

Anthony Capobianco

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 12) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than April 8, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:07-cr-00049-SM Document 13 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: June 29, 2007 at 3:30 PM 

Jury Selection: July 10, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

April 2, 2007 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Peter C. Horstmann, Esq. 

 Timothy Bush, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00049-SM Document 13 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 2
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-15-00021-CV



### _________________
IN RE BEVERLY ELAINE JONES

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ Original Proceeding

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Beverly Elaine Jones filed a petition fo r writ of habeas corpus, alleging she was illegally confined for punitive contempt pursuant to an order of the 75th District Court of Liberty County, Texas, in trial cause number CV71726 because she had not been provided with adequa te notice of the ma nner in which she violated the trial court’s 2013 community supervision order and the trial court failed to hold a hearing within the time required by law. We set a bond for Jones’s temporary release and requested a respon se from the real party in interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b)(1), (3). The Office of the Attorney General of Texas (OAG) filed a response that concedes error.2 On May 28, 2013, the trial court si gned a judgment of contempt and commitment order, suspended the comm itment, and placed Jones on community supervision. The OAG filed a motion to revoke community supervision for failure to timely pay current child support and medical support. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.214 (West 2014) (authorizing Title IV-D agency to file a motion to revoke community supervision). The trial court ordered the clerk to issue an arrest
warrant. See id. § 157.215 (authorizing arrest by warrant). Jones was booked into the Liberty County Jail on December 20, 2014. Due process requires the trial court to hold a revocation hearing soon after the obligor is arrested. In re Alexander , 243 S.W.3d 822, 825 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding). Section 157.216 of the Texas Family Code sets forth the time frame for holding a revoca tion in an enforcement case and provides that the hearing “may not be held later th an the seventh working day after the date the respondent is arrested.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 157.216(b) (West 2014). It is undisputed that no hearing was held within seven working days of the date that Jones was arrested. Jones was deprived of her liber ty without due process of law because she did not receive a hearing before the time expired for conducting a hearing on the motion to revo ke community supervision. See id. ; see also In re Roznosky , No. 02-11-00128-CV, 2011 WL 1743682, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort3 Worth May 4, 2011, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.) (granting habeas relief to person held in custody without a revocation hearing for more than seven working days). We grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus, order that Beverly Elaine Jones be discharged from custody under th e warrant issued in trial cause number CV71726, and order that she be releas ed from the bond posted to secure her temporary release pursuant to this Court’s order of January 16, 2015. PETITION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM
Submitted on February 4, 2015 Opinion Delivered February 19, 2015 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kr eger and Horton, JJ.