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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42073

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RUBEN CARREON MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 868

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of one and one-half years, for domestic battery with traumatic 

injury, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Ruben Carreon Mendoza entered an Alford1 plea to domestic battery with traumatic 

injury. I.C. § 18-918(2). In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed not to pursue an 

allegation that Mendoza was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Mendoza to a 

unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years. 

Mendoza filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Mendoza appeals.

 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 
2

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 the 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 

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, Mendoza’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, January 15, 2015, through Friday, January 16, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Thursday, January 15, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Friday, January 16, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Mountain Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Ms. Lisa Billups. For more information please contact Ms. Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6523, or write TAP Office 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                

The committee will be discussing various issues related to Taxpayer Communications and public input is welcome.

 Dated: December 3, 2014.

Otis Simpson,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2014-28850 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CAPITAL GROWTH, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,373
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,373
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,781
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (80,657)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,373
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,331
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,331)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of
Directors
MTS Systems Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-75880, 333-28661, 333-39388, 333-82582, and 333-136113) on Form S-8 of
MTS Systems Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated December 1, 2009,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of MTS Systems Corporation and
subsidiaries as of October 3, 2009 and September 27, 2008, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders investment and comprehensive
income, and cash flows and the related financial statement schedule II for each
of the years in the three-year period ended October 3, 2009, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of October 3,
2009, which report appears in the October 3, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of
MTS Systems Corporation and subsidiaries.

Our report refers to the adoption of FASB
Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes  an
Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 on September 30, 2007.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Minneapolis,
Minnesota
December 1, 2009

---
DISMISS; Opinion Filed May 16, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00667-CR

CHRISTIAN GABRIEL MCCULLOUGH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-70377

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Myers

Christian Gabriel McCullough was convicted, upon his adjudication of guilt, of forgery 

of a check and was sentenced to confinement for one year in a state jail. Sentence was imposed 

in open court on December 3, 2012. On April 23, 2013, appellant filed a motion for a judgment 

nunc pro tunc seeking additional back time credit. The trial court does not appear to have ruled 

on the motion, but on May 3, 2013, appellant filed a notice of appeal asserting he is being denied 

back time credit to which he is entitled. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

Presentence time credit claims typically must be raised by motion for judgment nunc pro 

tunc, as appellant did here. See Ex parte Florence, 319 W.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2010) (per curiam). However, if the trial court denies a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or 

fails to respond, the proper avenue for relief is by petition for writ of mandamus. See id. Or, if 

the applicant claims he is being illegally confined because he would have discharged his 
–2–

sentence if he had been given proper time credit, he may seek relief by post-conviction writ of 

habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See id.

Appellant did not utilize the above avenues for relief. Rather, he filed a notice of appeal, 

which is not one of the identified remedies. Accordingly, we conclude we lack jurisdiction over 

the appeal. 

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish

TEX R. APP. P. 47

130667F.U05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CHRISTIAN GABRIEL MCCULLOUGH, 

Appellant

No. 05-13-00667-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-70377.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, 

Justices Lang and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 16th day of May, 2013.

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.1    
    


PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS LIMITED  


(Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956)
Regd. Office: S-1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Yerawada, PUNE - 411 006 


        THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the person(s) named in this Certificate is/are the Registered Holder(s) of within-mentioned Share(s) bearing the distinctive number(s)
herein specified in the above Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company and that the shares mentioned below are fully paid up.


[SEAL]



EQUITY SHARES OF Rs.2/- EACH FULLY PAID UP  






	Register Folio No.:	 	 	 	 	 	Certificate No.:	 	 
	 	 	
	 	 	 	 	 	






	Name(s) of the Holder(s)	 	 
	 	 	

	


	


	







	No. of Share(s) held	 	 	 	(	 	)
	 	 	
(in words)	 	 	
 (in figures)	 





	Distinctive No.(s):	 	 	 	To	 	 
	 	 	
	 	 	 	








        Given under the Common Seal of the Company at MUMBAI this                  day
of                            



	 	 	
	 	 
	 	 	 	{	Directors
	 	 	
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Authorised Signatory
	 	 	
	 	 




NOTE:
No transfer of the Share(s) comprised in this Certificate can be registered unless accompanied by this Certificate. 







MEMORANDUM OF TRANSFER OF SHARE(S) MENTIONED OVERLEAF  



	Date
 
	 	Transfer No.
	 	Register Folio
	 	Name(s) of Tansferee(s)
	 	Initials
	 	Authorised Signature

	
 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	















QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 72706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28666]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (14-129)]


Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available 
for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of license availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR 
part 404. The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Administrator of the National 
Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA). The inventions collectively 
known as SpaceCube 2.0 provide Radiation-tolerant data processing 
systems are made available for licensing by the NASA. The inventions 
are disclosed in United States Patent Number SpaceCube v. 2.0 Flight 
Power Card, Application No. 14/040848; SpaceCube v2.0 Micro, 
Application No. 14/040924; SpaceCube v2.0 Flight Processor Card, 
Application No. 14/041407; SpaceCube 2.0 an Advanced Hybrid On-Board 
Data Processor, Application No. 12/570134; SpaceCube v2.0 Processor 
Card, Engineering Model, Application No. 14/041510.

DATES: Requests should be made prior to December 17, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for data and inventor 
interviews should be directed to Sia Argue, (301) 286-8994, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a49535b145b485d4f5f7a545b495b145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8bf8e2eaa5eaf9ecfeeecbe5eaf8eaa5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt 
Road GSFC: 504, 022:C265B, Greenbelt, MD 20771.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NASA-GSFC intends to move expeditiously to 
commercialize these patents by licensing to a cooperative research and 
development partner. Licensing application packages can be obtained by 
contacting Sia Argue and all applications and commercialization plans 
should be returned to NASA-GSFC by January 31, 2014. NASA-GSFC intends 
to ensure that its licensed inventions are broadly commercialized 
throughout the United States. Ideal licensees will be able to 
manufacture and commercialize boards that are fully tested to NASA's 
highest space flight specifications (IPC 6012B Class 3/A, GEVS, etc.), 
mount (and rework) back-to-back Virtex 5 FPGAs on a two-sided board, 
meet the NPR/ISO requirements for space flight board fabrication, 
comply with NASA-STD-8739.1 (staking, etc.), proven experience in 
managing a Level 1 parts program, ability to provide customer technical 
support, and will possess adequate facilities to conduct function and 
environment testing.

Enidia Santiago-Arce,
Technology Transfer Manager.
[FR Doc. 2014-28666 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,471
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  575,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     57,516
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               755,416
<PP&E>                                       2,791,996
<DEPRECIATION>                               (623,195)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,924,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,133,771
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  7,988,764
<COMMON>                                     1,460,335
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,572,392)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,924,217
<SALES>                                      3,550,722
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,550,722
<CGS>                                        4,255,461
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,255,461
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,635,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (35,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             167,307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,472,943)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,472,943)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,472,943)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.06)


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAMONT SHEPARD,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

P. MUNOZ; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-17219

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01470-GSA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted June 25, 2014*** 

Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Lamont Shepard appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth

FILED

JUL 03 2014

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.

 ** Shepard consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Amendment violations in connection with inappropriate touching while he was

being escorted back to his cell. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A

and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shepard’s Eighth Amendment claim

against defendant P. Munoz because Shepard failed to allege facts showing that P.

Munoz’s conduct objectively established a constitutional violation. See Watison v.

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112-14 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[N]ot every malevolent touch by

a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” (citation omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Shepard’s Eighth Amendment claim

against defendants C. Munoz and Campos because Shepard failed to allege facts

showing that these defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his

safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official cannot

be found liable for failing to protect an inmate “unless the official knew of and

disregarded an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Shepard’s state law claims after dismissing his

federal claims without leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We construe

2 13-17219
the dismissal of the state law claims to be without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas

Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994). 

We reject Shepard’s contention that the district court dismissed Shepard’s

action as a favor to defendants.

AFFIRMED.

3 13-17219
-1-
                            Exhibit (21)

                SUBSIDIARIES OF MILLIPORE CORPORATION

Pursuant to Item 601, Paragraph 22, clause (ii) of Regulation S-K,
the following list excludes subsidiaries who conduct no business
operations or which have no significant assets.

COMPANY                                           JURISDICTION

Millipore Asia Ltd.                               Delaware
Millipore Cidra, Inc.                             Delaware
Millipore Dublin International Finance Company    Ireland
Millipore Intertech (V.I.), Inc.                  U.S. Virgin Is.
Millipore International Holding Company B.V.      Netherlands
Millipore Japan Company L.L.C.                    Delaware
Millipore S.A./N.V.                               Belgium
Millipore (Canada) Ltd.                           Canada
Millipore (U.K.) Ltd.                             United Kingdom
Millipore S.A.                                    France
Millipore Ireland B.V.                            Netherlands
Millipore GmbH                                    Germany
Millipore S.p.A.                                  Italy
Millipore A.B.                                    Sweden
Millipore A.G.                                    Switzerland
Millipore A/S                                     Denmark
Millipore AS                                      Norway
Millipore Australia Pty. Ltd.                     Australia
Millipore GesmbH                                  Austria
Millipore Iberica S.A.                            Spain
Millipore S.A. de C.V.                            Mexico
Millipore I.E.C., Ltda.                           Brazil
Millipore OY                                      Finland
Millipore B.V.                                    The Netherlands
Millipore Korea Ltd.                              Korea
Millipore China Ltd.                              Hong Kong
Millipore KFT                                     Hungary
Millipore S.R.O.                                  Czech Republic
Millipore of New Hampshire, Inc.                  New Hampshire
Millicorp, Inc.                                   Delaware
Minerva Insurance Corp. Ltd.                      Bermuda
Nihon Millipore Limited                           Japan
Millipore Investment Holdings Ltd.                Delaware
Immunosystems Incorporated                        Maine
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40808 Conference Calendar

CURTIS RAY CARRICO, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:99-CV-656

-------------------- April 11, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Curtis Carrico, Texas prisoner number 778668, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Carrico argues that evidence pertaining to his prior arrests and convictions and to threats that he allegedly made to a police officer was introduced at trial in violation of state evidentiary laws. This state-law issue is not cognizable in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Bridge v. Lynaugh , 838 F.2d 770 (5th Cir.No. 00-40808 -2- 1988). Because Carrico argues an issue that is not cognizable in this proceeding, he has not shown that he is entitled to relief. Carrico argues other issues in his briefs. Because a certificate of appealability was not granted on these issues, we will not consider them. See Lackey v. Johnson , 116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997). All of Carrico’s outstanding motions are DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.