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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41903

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

COURDALE LEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 869

Filed: December 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

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

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 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; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Courdale Lee was found guilty of domestic violence in the presence of a child, I.C. 

§§ 18-903(a), 18-918(2) and 18-918(4), and intimidating a witness, I.C. § 18-2604. The district 

court sentenced Lee to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of 

three years, for domestic violence in the presence of a child and a consecutive indeterminate 

five-year term for intimidating a witness. The district court retained jurisdiction and Lee was 

sent to participate in the rider program. The district court thereafter relinquished jurisdiction. 

Lee sought an I.C.R 35 motion for reduction of his sentences, which the district court denied. 

Lee appeals.
2

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 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Lee’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Lee’s Rule 35 

motion is affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 March 7, 2017

a0227

Order 

Clerk

March 7, 2017

153449(28)(34)

ROBERT DONALD JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153449

COA: 329378

Wayne CC: 14-111404-DO

NAN MILLEN JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

30, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously. The motion to stay is DENIED.
#### Harry Carroll KIRK, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18146.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 22, 1960.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1960.

George E. Cochran, A. L. Wardlaw, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellant.

W. B. West, III, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Minor Morgan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

Before RIVES, Chief Judge, and JONES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for violation of the Mann Act, *44718 U.S.C.A. § 2421. The sole error urged is that the evidence was insufficient to justify the conviction. An examination of the record has convinced us that this contention is wholly without merit. The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

 

 

I, Steven Purcell,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofAlternative Resources Corporation;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant andhave:

 

(a)   Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b)   Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluations; and

 

(c)   Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

(a)   All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)   Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 

 

 

 
| Date:  August  14, 2003 |   | /s/ Steven Purcell      |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                         |   | Steven Purcell          |
|                         |   | Chief Financial Officer |
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trust 1997-1
$ 209,433,212 6.50% Auto Receivables Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 1998




         PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
            DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %
        ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-98   6,013,909   1,576,586     959,441    7.22%   11,434,529    7.23%
 Feb-98   6,288,201   1,586,470     857,388    7.81%    9,759,946    7.75%
 Mar-98   5,774,181   1,377,543     586,377    7.26%    8,901,548    6.88%
 Apr-98   6,669,931   1,391,385     745,916    5.20%    9,019,616    6.58%
 May-98   5,868,708   1,300,554     450,711    6.92%    7,998,545    6.97%
 Jun-98   5,343,567   1,233,449     366,676    4.37%    7,766,104    6.46%
 Jul-98   5,236,528   1,251,759     357,934    3.71%    7,989,892    6.55%
 Aug-98   5,277,386   1,200,496     406,450    3.79%    7,693,567    7.05%
 Sep-98   4,655,066   1,101,034     309,473    4.50%    7,558,453    7.09%
 Oct-98   4,549,097   1,059,447     284,473    3.59%    6,869,917    7.30%
 Nov-98   4,901,443   1,016,669     365,759    3.46%    6,678,638    6.97%
 Dec-98   4,193,534     943,262     365,174    4.66%    6,990,415    7.09%
        ____________ ___________ ___________
 Totals  64,771,552  15,038,654   6,055,774

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
# In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

MAY 5, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED100453 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V RICO RICARDO PAUL, APP

2. ED101062 CHARMEN WARD, RES V OTIS WARD, APP

3. ED101203 TONY DEON EDMOND, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

4. ED101297 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V DARRELL I. BOLDEN, APP

5. ED101353 JASON JAMES BARNES, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

6. ED101737 THOMAS M. HAMILTON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, R ES

7. ED101907 EUGENE STUBBLEFIELD, APP V CITY OF STL ET AL, RES

8. ED101994 ANTOINETTE LONGSTREET

- ALLEN, APP V DES, RES

9. ED102049 SHIRLEY BOWEN SMITH, APP V SIJ, RES
**Exhibit 32**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. § 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) of TF Financial Corporation (the “Company”)as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we,Kent C. Lufkin, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis R. Stewart,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal AccountingOfficer), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial position and results of operations of theCompany.
|        |              |   | /s/ Kent C. Lufkin                             |
|--------|-------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  | November 13, 2006 |   | Kent C. Lufkin                                 |
|   |              |   | President and CEO                              |
|   |              |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                  |
|   |              |   |                                           |
|   |              |   |                                           |
|   |              |   | /s/ Dennis R. Stewart                          |
| Date:  | November 13, 2006 |   | Dennis R. Stewart                              |
|   |              |   | Executive Vice President and                   |
|   |              |   | Chief Financial Officer                        |
|   |              |   | (Principal Financial & Accounting Officer) |

 

 

----
Exhibit 10.2


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


First Amendment to Employment Agreement (“First
Amendment”) effective December 30 2008, between Virtual
Radiologic Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Company”), and Eduard Michel,
M.D., (“Executive”).


 


Whereas, Company and Executive are parties to an Employment Agreement
dated July 1, 2007 (“Original Agreement”); and


 


Whereas, Company and Executive desire to amend the Original Agreement
to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code.


 


Now therefore Company and Executive agree as follows:


 


A.                                   Section 4(e)(5) “Compensation”
of the Original Agreement is amended by adding a new subsection (d) to
read as follows:


 


(d) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary herein, if Executive is a “specified employee,” as
defined in Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code as
of the date of any termination, any benefits otherwise due under this Section 4(e) during
the first six months following the date of termination shall be provided in one
lump sum six months after the date of termination.  However, that any
payment or portion thereof which is subject to an exemption for separation pay
to specified employees as provided under Section 409A and the relevant
Treasury Regulations, or is subject to any other exemption provided under Section 409A
and the relevant Treasury Regulations allowing for payment to a specified
employee prior to the date that is six (6) months after the date of
separation from service, may be paid to Employee within thirty (30) days
of the termination date once all applicable releases have been signed by the
Executive and returned to the Company.


 


B.                                     The Original
Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment, shall continue in full force and
effect according to its terms.


 


(the balance of this page is intentionally left blank)


 

















 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date
first written above.


 


	
   

  	
  COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Virtual Radiologic
  Corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Rob Kill

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:   Rob
  Kill

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its:   President

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Eduard Michel, M.D.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Eduard Michel
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1611 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1611

      To amend the Small Business Act to improve the 8(a) program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2007

  Mr. Reyes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Small Business Act to improve the 8(a) program.

    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 ``8(a) Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) when the 8(a) program was implemented in 1968, the 
        thresholds for noncompetitive contracts were $3,000,000 and 
        $5,000,000 (for manufacturing), and today those thresholds have 
        risen to only $3,500,000 and $5,500,000, respectively, a rate 
        of growth far overtaken by inflation; and
            (2) when the 8(a) program was implemented in 1968, the net 
        worth limit was $250,000, and today that limit is exactly the 
        same.

SEC. 3. IMPROVEMENTS TO 8(A) PROGRAM.

    Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(D)(i)(II)--
                    (A) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting 
                ``$12,000,000''; and
                    (B) by striking ``$3,000,000'' and inserting 
                ``$10,000,000''; and
            (2) in paragraph (6) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) the Administrator shall establish, for each 
                industry classification, a maximum level of net worth 
                for an economically disadvantaged individual. In 
                establishing such maximum levels, the Administrator 
                shall take into consideration the capital needs of each 
                industry. The Administrator shall not establish a 
                maximum net worth that prohibits program entry of less 
                than $750,000.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE ex rel. Tommy BORDELON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2865.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

*1195In re Bordelon, Tommy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 03-CR-117139A, 03-CR-118447; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 03-01711-KA, 04-00490-KA, 04-00491-KA.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., recused.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Waypoint Financial Corp.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-52130, No. 333-75352, and 333-75354) on Form S-8 of Waypoint Financial Corp.
of our report dated January 21, 2003, except for Note 1, which is as of November
14, 2003, with respect to the consolidated statement of financial condition of
Waypoint Financial Corp. as of December 31, 2002 and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year ended
December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report
on Form 10-K of Waypoint Financial Corp. Our report refers to a change in
accounting for goodwill.


                                  /s/ KPMG LLP



Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
November 14, 2003





                                       91
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 the accompanying Quarterly Report of Targeted Genetics
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, H. Stewart Parker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

Date: November 3, 2005                          /s/ H. Stewart Parker
                                                -------------------------------
                                                H. Stewart Parker
                                                President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.7







Exhibit 10.7




FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

MONICA M. WEED

AND

NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC.




     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”) is hereby entered into by and
between Monica M. Weed (“Employee”) and Navigant Consulting, Inc. (the “Company”), effective
January 1, 2009:



     WHEREAS, Employee and the Company are parties to the Employment Agreement dated as of November
3, 2008 between Employee and the Company (the “Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Agreement to provide for interest on any payments
subject to a six month delay as a result of the rules under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended.



     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the parties agree that the Agreement hereby is amended,
effective as of January 1, 2009, as follows:




1. The last sentence of Section 11(b)(i) hereby is amended to add the following
phrase immediately following the phrase “shall instead be paid” appearing therein:
“, with interest at the rate of 5% per annum,”.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Agreed:
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Julie M. Howard

	 	 	 	Date: December 19, 2008
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Julie M. Howard
	 	 	 	 
	President, Navigant Consulting, Inc.
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Monica M. Weed

	 	 	 	Date: December 19, 2008
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Monica M. Weed
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert N. Wildrick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.

|June 7, 2006 |  | /s/ ROBERTN. WILDRICK  
|------------ |  | -----------------------
|             |  |                        
|             |  | Robert N. Wildrick     
|             |  | Chief Executive Officer

---
#### Joshua EPPS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-1263.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 2, 2011.

*711Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

CLARK, J.

Challenging his conviction under section 790.23(l)(a), Florida Statutes, for possession of a firearm by convicted felon, the appellant contends that the statute violates his right to bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. While acknowledging that the statute has been upheld against prior constitutional challenges in cases such as *Nelson v. State,*195 So.2d 853 (Fla.1967), the appellant maintains that the statute will no longer survive scrutiny in light of more recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in *District of Columbia v. Heller,*554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), and *McDonald v. City of Chicago,*- U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010). In those cases the Supreme Court ruled that certain enactments in other jurisdictions, which broadly precluded the general populations there from possessing handguns, violated the Second Amendment in connection with the right to keep and use firearms within the home for self-defense. But that is not the circumstance under which the appellant was convicted in the present case. Furthermore, in both *Heller*and *McDonald*the Court expressly stated that the rulings in those cases should not be viewed as casting doubt on “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons....” *Heller*and *McDonald*thus do not undermine the Florida rulings in cases such as *Nelson,*with regard to the constitutionality of section 790.23(l)(a). *See also Leon-Estrada v. Secretary, Dep’t of Corrections,*2010 WL 3069475 (M.D.Fla. August 4, 2010). The appellant’s conviction under section 790.23(l)(a) is therefore AFFIRMED.

KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.