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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37219

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DONALD ALLEN GRUNDVIG,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 531

Filed: June 28, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of one and one-half years, for possession of 

methamphetamine, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Donald Allen Grundvig was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code 

§ 37-2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of one and one-half years. Grundvig appeals, contending that the 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 a 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 
2

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.

Therefore, Grundvig’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1679 

To provide that the great hall of the Capitol Visitor Center shall be known 

as Emancipation Hall. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 21, 2007 

Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. OBAMA) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To provide that the great hall of the Capitol Visitor Center 

shall be known as Emancipation Hall. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF GREAT HALL OF THE CAP4 ITOL VISITOR CENTER AS EMANCIPATION 

5 HALL. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The great hall of the Capitol Vis7 itor Center shall be known and designated as ‘‘Emanci8 pation Hall’’, and any reference to the great hall in any 

9 law, rule, or regulation shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to Emancipation Hall. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 1679 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply on 

2 and after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58188-58193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-72]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-72 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: September 25, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 58189]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.051


[[Page 58190]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.052


[[Page 58191]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.053


[[Page 58192]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.054


[[Page 58193]]


[FR Doc. E8-23352 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
#### In the Matter of Weyman A. Carey et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Ernest N. Foster, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Respondent.

In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Ernest N. Foster as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 11, 1990, for the nomination of that party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly from the 42nd Assembly District, Ernest N. Foster appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated August 14, 1990, which, after a hearing, granted the application, and the petitioners cross-appeal from the judgment.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements *(see, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ.,*60 NY2d 539; *Matter of Stark v Friedman,*122 AD2d 909); and it is further,

Ordered that on the appeal by Ernest N. Foster, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The hearing court properly determined that Ernest N. Foster is not qualified to run as a candidate for Member of the Assembly from the 42nd Assembly District since he was neither a resident of the State of New York for five years nor a resident of the Assembly District for 12 months preceding the election in which he sought to run (NY Const, art III, § 7). In addition to evidence adduced at the hearing indicating that Mr. Foster was a resident of Florida, there was ample evidence establishing that even if, at the relevant times, he was a New York resident, he was not a resident of the 42nd Assembly District. Although Mr. Foster owned a building within the 42nd Assembly District, there was no evidence establishing that he resided at that location. Additionally, when questioned at the hearing about his residency status in Florida, Mr. Foster chose to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Thus, it is proper to infer that evidence was withheld because it would have been unfavorable to him *(see, Marine Midland Bank v Russo Produce Co.,*50 NY2d 31; Richardson, Evidence §§ 92, 524 [Prince 10th ed]).

*931In light of this determination, we need not address the petitioners’ contention that the designating petition was permeated with fraud. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Harwood, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: February 6, 2012

Court Reporter: Paul Zuckerman

Probation Officer: Sergio Garza

Interpreter: Catherine Bahr

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00366-MSK

Parties: Counsel:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lillian Alves

Plaintiff,

v.

ANA ISABEL JAIMES-OCAMPO, Matthew Belcher

Defendant.

SENTENCING MINUTES

______________________________________________________________________________

11:04 a.m. Court in session.

Defendant present in custody.

Interpreter sworn.

Change of Plea Hearing on November 16, 2011. Defendant pled guilty to Count 1of the

Indictment.

Parties received and reviewed the presentence report and all addenda.

The parties do not dispute the facts contained in the presentence report.

The parties do not dispute the calculation of the sentence under the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines as set forth in the original presentence report.

The parties do not request departure.

The defendant does contend that the sentence should be different from that calculated under the

Sentencing Guidelines in light of the sentencing objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section

3553(a). (Doc. #20) Argument.

Allocution. - Statements made by: The Government, the defendant, defense counsel.
Sentencing Minutes

Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Page 2

After consideration of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3553 (a), the Court announces the sentence it

intends to impose as reflected in the record. Counsel are offered the opportunity for further

argument. No further argument.

ORDER: Defendant’s Motion for Non-Guideline Sentence (Doc. #20) is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part.

ORDER: THE DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED AS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD.

The defendant is advised of her right to appeal.

ORDER: Defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal for the

District of Colorado.

11:37 a.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 33 minutes.

Hearing concluded.
#### Nelle K. ANSBERRY et al., Appellants, v. Medora B. Stuyvesant HUGHES, Joined by Her Husband, David G. Hughes, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Ben Shepard, of Miami, for the motion.

*916PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel tor appellants.
#### Mary Elizabeth WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert W. BICCUM, J. W. Miller, C. A. Grobe, G. O. Pittman, J. J. Curtis, T. E. Drone, Charles L. Hammond and Retail Credit Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 75-1033.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 3, 1977.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 10,1977.

W. Roberts Wilson, Jr., Pascagoula, Miss., Augusta Elliott Wilson, Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.

John B. Wilkes, Nashville, Tenn., for Assoc. of Trial Lawyers of America, amicus curiae.

Webb M. Mize, W. Joe Blass, Gulfport, Miss., Francis M. Gregory, Jr., Washington,D. C., for defendants-appellees.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and JONES and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

With undaunted perseverance reflected by at least four decisions in this Court,1 Appellant, on a theory of a conspiracy by defendants to conceal their fraud, seeks to bring this case under 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986. The District Court granted summary judgment which we sustain. There is no adequate state action so § 1983 is unavailable. The § 1985(3) falls before our en banc decision in *McLellan v. Mississippi Power & Light Co.,*5 Cir., 1976, 545 F.2d 919, rev’g., 526 F.2d 870. As to the asserted pendent state claim no error has been demonstrated.

AFFIRMED.

1

. *Wilson v. Retail Credit Co.,*5 Cir., 1973, 474 F.2d 1260; *Wilson v. Retail Credit Co.,*5 Cir., 1972, 457 F.2d 1406; *Wilson v. Retail Credit Co.,*S.D.Miss., No. 3846, Aff'd., 5 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 1043. *Wilson v. Retail Credit Co.,*S.D. Miss., No. 3846, was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, and was removed to the District Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50415

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL L. MACGOWAN, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

KELLY COX; DERRICK SHYROCK,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CV-22

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael L. Macgowan, Jr., filed a pro se suit in federal court alleging

admiralty jurisdiction. Macgowan alleged that he rescued a jet ski drifting on

Lake LBJ, and he sought $3,000, half the value of the vessel, as a salvage fee. 

The district court found that Lake LBJ was a landlocked lake, bounded by

impassible dams on both ends, and located entirely within a single state. For

these reasons, the district court found that Lake LBJ is not a navigable

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 7, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-50415 Document: 00511978123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2012
No. 11-50415

waterway for the purpose of admiralty jurisdiction, and dismissed the case for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Macgowan argues that the district court erred in dismissing his suit. A

district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewed de

novo. Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1994). In

Guillory v. Outboard Motor Corp., 956 F.2d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1992), this court

held that Crooked Creek Reservoir, a body of water contained within Louisiana

and blocked by dams, was not a navigable waterway for admiralty jurisdiction

purposes because interstate travel through the waterway was not possible. 

Given the findings of the district court and Macgowans’s concessions, Lake LBJ

is not part of a waterway through which interstate travel is possible. The

district court did not err in dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED. 

2

Case: 11-50415 Document: 00511978123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2012
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Queen Mining
Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2011 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:

| | 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: May 16, 2011 | /s/ Lutz Klingmann         
|------------------- | ---------------------------
|                    | Lutz Klingmann             
|                    | Principal Executive Officer

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          20,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                       380
<INVENTORY>                                      8,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,415
<PP&E>                                         113,566
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,785
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          592,470
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (455,827)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,037
<SALES>                                        137,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,616
<CGS>                                           24,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  167,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   312
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   252
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,054)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       246
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,300)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------



                                      13

<PAGE>


COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWMBS, INC.
                         ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2002-4
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-6


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

     (i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
     preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer
     under the Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

     (ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master
     Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout
     such year.



/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                                 Dated: March 27, 2003

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT
AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER



/s/ Mark Wong                                            Dated: March 27, 2003

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT



                                      14
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 9, 2022

No. 04-22-00125-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.C. AND M.B., Children

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019PA01853

Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal, the clerk’s record was due on March 7, 2022. The next day, 

the Bexar County District Clerk filed a notification of late record requesting additional time to 

prepare the clerk’s record. 

The request is GRANTED. The clerk’s record is due on March 15, 2022. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 35.3(c) (limiting an extension in an accelerated appeal to ten days).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of March, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11
                                        
                       CARVER CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                             Three Months Ended          Six Months Ended
                                   June 30,                  June 30,
                              1997         1996         1997         1996
                           -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                        <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
 PRIMARY EARNINGS PER
  SHARE NET LOSS           $ (195,000)  $ (971,000)  $(1,275,000) $(1,356,000)
                           ----------   ----------   -----------  -----------
 
Weighted average number
  of shares outstanding     3,803,384    3,692,850     3,781,862    3,690,677
Add shares issuable from
 the assumed exercise
 of options or
 conversion of
 preferred stock                *            *             *            *


Add shares issuable from
 the assumed conversion
 of preferred shares            *            *             *            *
                           _________    __________   ___________   __________
Weighted average number
 of shares outstanding,
 as adjusted               3,803,384     3,692,850     3,781,862    3,690,677
                          ----------    ----------   -----------   ----------

LOSS PER COMMON SHARE    $     (0.05)   $    (0.26)  $     (0.34)  $    (0.37)
                          ===========   ==========   ===========   ==========

</TABLE> 

*Effect on loss per share is antidilutive

                                      15
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS

LAFAYE ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDEX GROUND/HOME DELIVERY,

Defendant. 

ORDER GRANTING SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer 

This civil action is before the court for service of the “Title VII Complaint”

(“Complaint”) (Doc. # 2). Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated January 27, 2012

(Doc. # 6), this case was referred to the Magistrate Judge. On September 14, 2011,

the court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915. (See Doc. # 4). It is now

ORDERED that, if appropriate, the Clerk of the Court shall attempt to obtain a

waiver of service from Defendant FedEx Ground/Home Delivery, 1000 FedEx Drive,

Moon Township PA. 15108. If the Clerk is unable to do so, the United States Marshal

shall serve a copy of the operative Complaint (Doc. # 2) and summons upon Defendant

FedEx Ground/Home Delivery. If appropriate, the Marshal shall first attempt to obtain a

waiver of service of these documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). All costs of

service shall be advanced by the United States. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that after service of process, Defendant shall respond to

Case 1:11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS Document 7 Filed 01/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

the Complaint (Doc. # 2) as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 30th day of January, 2012. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Craig B. Shaffer 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS Document 7 Filed 01/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2