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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40482

JONNINE SITTRE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

OLIVIA CRAVEN, IDAHO COMMISSION 

OF PARDONS AND PAROLE,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 591

Filed: June 25, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Daniel C. Hurlbutt, District Judge. 

Summary judgment in favor of respondent on petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, affirmed.

Jonnine Sittre, Kuna, pro se appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; William M. Loomis, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Jonnine Sittre filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the district court against the 

respondent, Olivia Craven (executive direct of the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole (the 

Commission)). The district court granted summary judgment to Craven, and Sittre appeals. 

Although Sittre’s argument is not explicit in her brief before this Court, Sittre, it would seem, 

contends she should be granted parole. There is no constitutionally protected right to parole. 

Warren v. Craven, 152 Idaho 327, 331, 271 P.3d 725, 729 (Ct. App. 2012). The Idaho statutes 

only provide for the possibility of parole. Izatt v. State, 104 Idaho 597, 600, 661 P.2d 763, 766 

(1983). Parole is at the discretion of the Commission, and the denial of parole need only be 

supported by a rational basis. Warren, 152 Idaho at 331, 271 P.3d at 729. Consequently, there is 
2

no guarantee that a prisoner will be released after serving the determinate period of her sentence. 

Id. at 331-32, 271 P.3d at 729-30. 

The record reveals that Sittre has an extensive criminal history, failed parole in the past, 

had not yet completed required programming as of the date of the parole hearing, and had 

committed disciplinary offenses while incarcerated. These considerations form a rational basis 

to deny parole. See, e.g., id. at 331, 271 P.3d at 729 (acknowledging that an inmate’s 

involvement in rehabilitative programming could be a factor for the Commission to consider in 

granting or denying parole). There is no genuine issue of material fact, and Craven is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of Craven is 

affirmed.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, Bruce M. Rose, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
    Form 10-K of Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2007-FRE1 (the
    "Exchange Act periodic reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
    to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
    light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
    material respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
    Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
    have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
    described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
    10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
    provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:EMC Mortgage
    Corporation as Servicer, Fremont Investment & Loan as Interim Servicer,
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee and Custodian, American Security
    Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure
    Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly, "Safeco Financial Institution Solutions,
    Inc.") (collectively, "Assurant"), as sub-contractor for EMC Mortgage
    Corporation, FIS Tax Services and formerly known as LSI Tax Services, as
    sub-contractor for EMC Mortgage Corporation and LandAmerica Tax and Flood
    Services, Inc., as sub-contractor for EMC Mortgage Corporation.

    Dated:   March 28, 2008


    /s/ Bruce M. Rose
    Signature

    President
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### Reynolds Brothers *v.*Padgett.

Although the owner of personal property which another wrongfully takes and converts permanently to his own use may waive the tort and maintain an action *ex contractu*on account for the value of the property, yet where such property was taken without leave but with no intention to convert it permanently, and was injured by a temporary wrongful use, the wrongdoer holding it afterwards for the owner and with no purpose to use, claim or dispose of it as his own, he is liable for the tort in a proper action, but is not chargeable with the value of the property in a suit based on account as for goods sold and delivered.

August 20, 1894.

Petition for *certiorari.*Before Judge Sweat. Appling county. September 9, 1893.

G. J. Holton & Son, by brief, for plaintiffs.

Simmons, Justice.

All the authorities agree that one who takes and sells personal property belonging to another, without the *348consent of the owner, is liable for its value in an action upon an implied promise to pay for the property. The authorities differ as to whether such an action will lie where the person taking the property does not sell it but retains it for his own use; but the weight of authority seems to be, that the action will lie where the person who takes the property enriches himself or makes, a profit from the property, either by selling it or by retaining it and using it himself, with the intention to-convert it permanently. Pomeroy, Code Remedies, §§567, 569, and notes. The defendant in this case did neither of these things. He found the wagon in the street and hitched his horses to it for the purpose of going upon a fishing excursion for one day, but upon starting to go the tongue of the wagon was broken by one of the horses, and he unhitched the horses and left it in the street. It was finally carried to his lot and left there, but there is no evidence that he ever made any claim to the wagon or any further use of it, nor was anything further proven tending to show that he intended to convert it permanently to his own use; on the contrary the indications are that he was holding it for the use of the owner. "We therefore think the trial judge was right in holding that an action upon an implied contract would not lie, but that the plaintiff’ must-sue in tort, for the damage to his property!

*Judgment affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                              93
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1314
<ALLOWANCES>                                        31
<INVENTORY>                                       1441
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   428
<PP&E>                                            6288
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5423
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    4548
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3812
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3824
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3510)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      4548
<SALES>                                           9947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9947
<CGS>                                             7186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    10072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    50
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (334)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (334)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (334)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)


</TABLE>
From: The District Court of the 1st Judicial District. County of Lewis and Clark.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. WILFRED GLADUE, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. BDC-08-444 DECISION

On January 8,2009, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years for the offense of Count I: Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol - Sixth Offense, a felony. The Department may place the defendant into an appropriate community-based program, facility, or a State correctional institution, with the Court’s recommendation that the defendant complete the WATCh program. The sentence shall run consecutively to the sentence imposed upon the defendant in Cause No. BDC-2002-314.

On May 8, 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 8th day of May, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10884]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,629]


Coadna Photonics, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 18, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed on behalf of the workers at CoAdna Photonics, Inc., 
Sunnyvale, California.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of April 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10884 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[914 NE2d 141, 885 NYS2d 449]

#### In the Matter of Patricia Myers, Appellant, v Jon Baisley, Respondent, et al., Respondents.

Argued August 25, 2009;

decided August 26, 2009

*728APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*David A. Sears,*Poughkeepsie, for appellant.

*John Ciampoli,*Albany, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed *(see Matter of Cass v Krakower,*13 NY3d 118 [2009] [decided today]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries
of the registrant are as follows:

State or Other
Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or
OrganizationBoise Inc.

DelawareBZ Intermediate Holdings LLC (100%)

DelawareBoise Paper Holdings, L.L.C. (100%)

DelawareBoise Packaging & Newsprint, L.L.C. (100%)

DelawareLouisiana Timber Procurement Company, L.L.C. (50%)

DelawareBoise White Paper, L.L.C. (100%)

DelawareBoise White Paper Sales Corp. (100%)

DelawareBoise White Paper Holdings Corp. (100%)

DelawareInternational Falls Power Company (100%)

DelawareMinnesota, Dakota & Western Railway Company (100%)

MinnesotaBemis Corporation (100%)

DelawareBoise Hong Kong Limited (100%)

Hong KongBoise Cascade Transportation Holdings Corp. (100%)

DelawareBCT, INC. (100%)

Delaware


---
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3906 

To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to make individuals 

employed by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission 

eligible to obtain Federal health insurance. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. HARKIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to 

make individuals employed by the Roosevelt Campobello 

International Park Commission eligible to obtain Federal 

health insurance. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HEALTH INSURANCE. 

4 Section 8901(1) of title 5, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

7 the end; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 3906 IS

1 (2) in subparagraph (I), by inserting ‘‘and’’ 

2 after the semicolon; and 

3 (3) by inserting before the matter following 

4 subparagraph (I) the following: 

5 ‘‘(J) an individual who is employed by the 

6 Roosevelt Campobello International Park Com7 mission and is a citizen of the United States,’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pedro Parrales, Appellant.

[962 NYS2d 663]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.), rendered May 31, 2011, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree (two counts), assault in the second degree (three counts), endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*872Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial is ordered.

During the second round of voir dire, after questioning of the second group of prospective jurors was completed and each side had exercised challenges for cause, the Supreme Court asked defense counsel if he wished to exercise any peremptory challenges, and defense counsel responded, “No.” Seconds later, as the court named the first three prospective jurors in the group to be assigned seats, defense counsel interrupted, apologizing, and explained that he had intended to exercise a peremptory challenge against one of the remaining prospective jurors in that group, prospective juror number four. Although that prospective juror was not yet assigned a seat and the request was made just moments after defense counsel mistakenly accepted all of the remaining prospective jurors in that group, the court denied defense counsel’s request to challenge that juror as untimely. Under these circumstances, where there was no discernable interference or undue delay caused by defense counsel’s momentary oversight, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel’s request to challenge the prospective juror *(see People v Jabot,*93 AD3d 1079, 1081 [2012]; *cf. People v Leakes,*284 AD2d 484 [2001]; *People v Isaac,*212 AD2d 635 [1995]). Since a trial court’s improper denial of a peremptory challenge mandates automatic reversal *(see People v Hecker,*15 NY3d 625, 661 [2010]), we must reverse the conviction and order a new trial *(see People v Jabot,*93 AD3d at 1082).

The defendant’s remaining contention has been rendered academic in light of our determination.

Balkin, J.E, Lott, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF 

SARAH JANE RIDEOUT, A CHILD.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-09-00141-CV

Appeal from

109th District Court

of Winkler County, Texas

(TC # 15,590)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination whether the appeal

should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellant has not filed a brief or a motion

for extension of time, we dismiss the appeal.

Appellant filed notice of appeal on May 4, 2009 and the clerk’s record was filed on June 1,

2009. Appellant’s brief was therefore due to be filed on July 1, 2009. Appellant has not filed a brief

or a motion for extension of time. On July 16, 2009, the Clerk of the Court sent a letter notifying

Appellant that neither a brief nor a motion for extension of time in which to file the brief had been

filed. The letter further advised Appellant of the Court’s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution unless, within ten days of the notice, Appellant responded showing grounds to continue

the appeal. No response has been received.

This Court possesses the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when the

appellant has failed to file his brief in the time prescribed, and gives no reasonable explanation for

such failure. TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63

(Tex.App.--San Antonio 1998, no writ). We have given notice of our intent to do so, requested a
response if a reasonable basis for failure to file the brief exists, and have received none.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1) and

42.3(c).

November 24, 2009 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0225; FRL-8904-4]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of a meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), announces the cancellation of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Clean Air Subcommittee. This meeting, a teleconference on April 30, 2009, was announced in a                         **Federal Register**                         Notice published on April 8, 2009 (74 FR 15967). The purpose of this meeting was to provide an overview of ORD and the Clean Air program, and to prepare for the June 8-10, 2009 face-to-face meeting of the subcommittee. The proposed agenda topics will be covered during the May 21, 2009 meeting (telecon).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Heather Drumm, Mail Code 8104-R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564-8239; via fax at: (202) 565-2911; or via e-mail at:                         *drumm.heather@epa.gov.*

Dated: May 5, 2009.

Fred Hauchman,

Director, Office of Science Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-11222 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EX 4.1


    EXHIBIT
      4.1

     

     

     

     

     

    
      
         

      

      
        -1-

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    
       

       

       

      
        
           

        

        
          -2-

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

    

     

    
       

       

       

      
        
           

        

        
          -3-

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

    

     

    
       

       

      
        
           

        

        
          -4-

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

       

      
         

         

         

        
          
             

          

          
            -5-

            
              

            

          

          
             

          

        

      

       

      
         

         

         

        
          
             

          

            -6-