alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37319

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

DALE QUINCE DAVIS

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opin ion No. 677

Filed: October 18, 2010

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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,

Madison County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentence s of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years , for attempted strangulation and sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for domestic battery

, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deput y Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

______________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Dale Quince Davis pled guilty to attempted strangulation

, I.C. § 18

- 923 , and entered an

Alford 1 plea to domestic battery, I.C. § 18

- 918(3)

. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional

charges were dismissed. The district court s entenced Davis to a unified term of ten years, with a

minimum period of confinement of two years

, and a fine of $5,000 for attempted strangulation

and a concurrent unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year,

and a fine of $2,500 for domestic battery

. Davis 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 a re 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 t he record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Davis ’s judgment of conviction and sentence s are affirmed.
Exhibit 32



Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, based on our knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three month period ended
September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                 |  |                                                                                    
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 4, 2005 |  |  |  | MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
|                       |  |  |  |                           
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  | By:             |  | /s/ Richard D. Balanson                                                            
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                 |  | Richard D. Balanson                                                                
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                 |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                              
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: November 4, 2005 |  |  |  | By:                        |  | /s/ Tim T. Hart
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                 |  | Tim T. Hart                                                                        
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                 |  | Vice President, Finance, Treasurer, Corporate Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                 |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### State v. Cragher

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 474

No. 650P06

1. Defs NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA05-1590)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1.-

2. Allowed 03/08/07

3. Denied 03/08/07
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00613

- CV

Gary P. LAWTON , M.D., FACS, Appellant

v.

Rachel JOAQUIN

, Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 16544

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the trial court for (1) entry of an order granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice, and (2) other proceedings consistent with our opinion.

SIGNED February 26, 2014.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
**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 Quarterly Report of Diatect International Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      David Andrus, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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











October
                30, 2007
            /s/
                David AndrusDavid
                S. AndrusPrincipal
                Executive OfficerPrincipal
                Financial Officer




























































---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 3666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1116]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Data Collection Available for Public Comments and Recommendations

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to 
request approval on a new and/or currently approved information 
collection.

DATES: Submit comments on or before March 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments regarding whether this information 
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of 
the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are 
ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the 
collection, to David Becker, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Office of 
the Chief Financial Officer, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Becker, Acting Chief Financial 
Officer, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 202-205-6122, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6004011609044e0205030b0512201302014e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbdfdacdd2df95d9ded8d0dec9fbc8d9da95dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>; Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b584e494f524815495258537b48595a155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="13706661677a603d617a707b536071723d747c65">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SBA will use data from (1) recipients of 
SBA-backed loans or SBIC financing to access customers satisfaction & 
perception of program impact and (2) 7(a) lenders to examine factors 
used to determine if credit elsewhere requirements are met.
    Title: ``An Assessment of Small Business Administration Loan and 
Investment Performance.''
    Description of Respondents: This survey will be administered to a 
random sample of businesses assisted under various SBA programs.
    Form Numbers: 2284, 2285.
    Annual Responses: 1.
    Annual Burden: 346.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
 [FR Doc. E9-1116 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Isaiah T.F.C., an Infant. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Charisse F., Respondent; D’Juan C., Nonparty Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 574]

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the nonparty father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Yuskevich, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 10, 2011, as, after a permanency hearing, changed the permanency goal from reunification with the mother to placement for adoption.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We note that the father, who participated in the proceeding, had standing to contest the order, inter alia, changing the permanency goal from reunification with the mother to placement for adoption *(see*Family Ct Act § 1055 [b] [iii]; *Matter of Devonna O.,*31 AD3d 766 [2006]).

The petitioner met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a plan to change the permanency goal to adoption was in the subject child’s best interests *(see Matter of Michael D. [Antionette R.],*71 AD3d 1017, 1018 [2010]; *Matter of Amber B.,*50 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2008]; *Matter of Devonna O.,*31 AD3d 766 [2006]; *Matter of Amanda C.,*309 AD2d 744 [2003]). Accordingly, the Family Court’s determination to approve a permanency goal of adoption has a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Michael D. [Antionette R.],*71 AD3d at 1018; *Matter of Devonna O.,*31 AD3d 766 [2006]; *Matter of Amanda C.,*309 AD2d 744 [2003]), and we decline to disturb that determination. Skelos, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnaldo MARTINEZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-20914

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 30, 2009.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis*343trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lourdes Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ar-naldo Martinez-Gomez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Martinez-Gomez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          33,487
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,487
<PP&E>                                           6,514
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,794
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       137,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (100,793)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,001
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,802
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (41,636)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (41,636)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (41,636)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11023]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLUT91000-L11400000-PH0000-24-1A]


Notice of Utah's Resource Advisory Council (RAC)/Recreation RAC 
Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Utah's Resource Advisory Council (RAC)/Recreation RAC 
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Utah 
Resource Advisory Council (RAC)/Recreation RAC will meet as indicated 
below.

DATES: The Utah Resource Advisory Council (RAC)/Recreation RAC will 
meet June 19 (8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.) in Salt Lake City, Utah.

ADDRESSES: The Council will meet at the Radisson Hotel (Wasatch 4 
meeting room), 215 West South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Sherry Foot, Special Programs 
Coordinator, Utah State Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 
45155, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0155; phone (801) 539-4195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member Council advises the Secretary 
of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of 
planning and management issues associated with public land management 
in Utah. Planned agenda topics include a welcome and introduction of 
new Council members; an update of Utah-BLM issues; and, recreation fee 
increase proposals from the Bureau of Land Management (Sand Flats 
Recreation Area and Moab campgrounds) and U.S. Forest Service 
(Christmas tree permit fee increases) for the RAC's approval. A half-
hour public comment period, where the public may address the Council, 
is scheduled from 3:15 p.m.-3:45 p.m. Written comments may be sent to 
the Bureau of Land Management addressed listed above. All meetings are 
open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the 
responsibility of the participating public.

    Dated: May 5, 2009.
Selma Sierra,
State Director.
[FR Doc. E9-11023 Filed 5-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
Exhibit 10.2


 


April  30, 2007


Michael McMahon


1724 West School Street


Chicago,
IL  60657


Dear
MIke:


Congratulations!
I am pleased to confirm the terms of your promotion to the position of President,
Global Relocation reporting directly to myself.


Salary Band:  Senior
Vice President Level 21.


Salary:
$400,000 per year, payable in bi-weekly installments.  The salary is quoted on an annual basis for
convenience only and does not imply employment for a specific term, nor alter
the “at will” status of your employment.


Annual
Bonus: You will eligible to participate in SIRVA’s Management Incentive
Program, which at your position has an annualized bonus potential of 80% of
base salary, pro-rated based on effective date and subject to terms of the
program.  This payment will be subject to
taxes and other withholdings, which may be required.


Effective Date: 
April 30, 2007


Executive
Benefits:


Company
Car Allowance:                   $16,800/annually


Financial
Planning:                              AYCO


Executive Physical:                              $1,500/annually


Except as provided herein and the Additional Terms in your original
offer letter dated March 17, 2004, all other terms and conditions of that
original offer letter remain in full force and effect.


We believe you will continue to be challenged by this exciting
opportunity.  SIRVA is confident that
your skills and knowledge will continue to be an asset to our organization


Sincerely,


/s/ Robert Tieken


Bob
Tieken


Chief Executive Officer, SIRVA


Accepted and Agreed to this 7th day of June, 2007.


/s/
Michael McMahon


Michael McMahon
From: The District Court of the 8th Judicial District. County of Cascade.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. KELLY PARANTEAU, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. CDC-07-237 DECISION

*89On August 12, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison, with eight (8) years suspended, for the offense of Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs, a felony.

On November 12, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 12 th day of November, 2009.

DATED this 25th day of November, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
#### Rebecca Chusid, Respondent, v Daniel Silvera, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 625]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Janowitz, J.), dated October 24, 2012, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for an award of interim counsel fees in the sum of $100,000.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiff’s motion for an award of interim counsel fees in the sum of $100,000, and substituting therefor a provision granting the plaintiff’s motion to the extent of awarding her interim counsel fees in the sum of $75,000, and otherwise denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“An award of interim counsel fees ensures that the nonmonied spouse will be able to litigate the action, and do so on equal footing with the monied spouse” *(Prichep v Prichep,*52 AD3d 61, 65 [2008]; *see O’Shea v O’Shea,*93 NY2d 187, 193 [1999]; *Meltzer v Meltzer,*63 AD3d 702, 703 [2009]; *Wald v Wald,*44 AD3d 848, 850 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff an interim counsel fee based on the apparent disparity in the parties’ financial circumstances (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; *Rosenbaum v Rosenbaum,*55 AD3d 713 [2008]; *Prichep v Prichep,*52 AD3d at 65-66). However, an interim counsel fee award in the sum of $75,000 is sufficient to ensure that the plaintiff can litigate this action on equal footing with the defendant, and thus we reduce the interim counsel fee awarded by the Supreme Court.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### Hilly *v.*Knight.

The verdict was warranted by the evidence, the jury having credited the witnesses for the plaintiff; and there was no error in denying a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

July 23, 1894.

Complaint on note. Before Judge Ross. City court •of Macon. September term, 1893.

Dessau & Hodges, for plaintiff in error.

Arthur Dasher, *contra.*

This was a suit for the balance due on a promissory note given for purchase money and rent. The note bore several credits, among them a credit for “ sundry of the items included in the within instrument, amounting to $400, which was accepted as payment to that extent on this note,” leaving balance due of $376.64, with interest. Defendant pleaded not indebted, and that he returned to plaintiff' the property which was the consideration of the note, and the parties to the contract then and there rescinded it and the note was cancelled by operation of law. The evidence was conflicting. Plaintiff obtained a verdict, and defendant’s motion on the general grounds for a new trial was overruled.
#### State v. Fisher

Case below: 171 N.C. App. 201

No. 518P06

Def’s PWC to Review Decision of COA (COA04-1155)

Denied 01/25/07

Tim i lionsGoodson, J., Recused