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 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 591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

T HIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. H urlbutt , District Judge.

Summary judgment in favor of r espondent 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 Cra ven, 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, 33 1, 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
(198 3 ). Parole is at the discretion of the Commission, and the denial of parole need only be

suppo rted by a rational basis. Warren , 152 I daho at 331 , 271 P.3d at 729. Consequently , there is2 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

. T he record reveals that Sittre has a n 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rashad McNair, Appellant.

Submitted February 23, 2009;

decided March 26, 2009

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             764
<SECURITIES>                                    14,697
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,481
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         257,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,958
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 274,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        175,557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   274,566
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,069
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,520
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (398)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (398)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (398)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136898 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

## Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices



## v SC: 136898 COA: 271478 Oakland CC: 2005-204119-FC RASHAUN MICHAEL JOHNSON-PEEL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 8, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
##### 



For Immediate Release
 Contact:
    
    Laurence G. Sellyn, Executive Vice-President, Finance
and Chief Financial Officer
Tel: (514) 343-8805
Email: lsellyn@gildan.com
 Gildan Activewear Announces Record Fourth Quarter and Full Year Sales and Earnings
 Fourth Quarter E.P.S. Up 42.4% over Prior Year and Ahead of Most Recent Guidance 
  Company Expects E.P.S. for First Quarter of Fiscal 2006 to be at Least 64% Higher than Fiscal 2005 
 Montréal, Thursday, December 1, 2005
 Fourth Quarter Sales and Earnings




---



##### 



Gildan
    
    Gildan
    
    
    
    Gildan
    
    IndustryMarket Share
    
    Market Share
    
    
    
    Unit Growth
    
    Unit GrowthQ4 2005
    
    Q4 2004
    
    
    
    Q4 2005 vs. Q4 2004
    
    Q4 2005 vs. Q4 200435.9%
    
    30.1%
    
    T-shirts
    
    27.2%
    
    6.9%31.7%
    
    23.3%
    
    Sport shirts
    
    38.9%
    
    1.3%25.8%
    
    17.3%
    
    Fleece
    
    58.3%
    
    8.7%
   Full Year Earnings
  Earnings Guidance
  2




---



##### 



Cash Flow
   Disclosure of Outstanding Share Data
  Profile
  3




---



##### 



Certain statements included in this press release may constitute forward-looking statements
within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such
forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which
could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed or implied by such
forward-looking statements. We refer you to the Companys filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and Canadian securities regulatory authorities for a discussion of the various
factors that may affect the Companys future results.
 This release includes reference to certain Non-GAAP Financial Measures such as net earnings and
earnings per share before the special charge, net earnings and earnings per share before the impact
of the functional currency adjustment on cost of sales, and free cash flow. The Company uses and
presents certain Non-GAAP Financial Measures because it believes such measures provide meaningful
information on the Companys performance and operating results. However, investors should know
that such Non-GAAP Financial Measures have no standardized meaning as prescribed by GAAP and may
not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. Accordingly, they should not
be considered in isolation.
 Information for shareholders
  - 30 -
 4
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 92 (Thursday, May 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11251]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds--Termination and 
Merger: Seaboard Surety Company

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 11 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570, 2008 Revision, published June 30, 2008, at 73 FR 37644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Certificate 
of Authority issued by the Treasury to the above-named company under 31 
U.S.C. 9305 to qualify as acceptable surety on Federal bonds has been 
terminated. The Seaboard Surety Company (NAIC<greek-i> 22535) merged 
with and into Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America 
(NAIC<greek-i> 31194) effective January 1, 2009. The surviving 
corporation of the merger activity is Travelers Casualty and Surety 
Company of America (NAIC<greek-i> 31194), a Connecticut domiciled 
corporation. Federal bond-approving officials should annotate their 
reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 
(``Circular''), 2008 Revision, to reflect this change.
    In the event bond-approving officers have questions relating to 
bonds issued by the above-named company that has merged with and into 
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (NAIC<greek-i> 31194), 
they should contact Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America at 
(860) 277-0111.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West 
Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: April 28, 2009.
Rose M. Miller,
Acting Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial 
Management Service.
[FR Doc. E9-11251 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
No. 07-18-00442-CR

Fabian Perez

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 320th District Court

 of Potter County

January 15, 2019

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated January 15, 2019, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that this appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
#### Balvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72729.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*567Submitted May 5, 2009.*

Filed May 7, 2009.

Tsz-Hai Huang, Hardeep Singh Rai, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Lisa W. Edwards, Mark L. Gross, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: HAWKINS and TALLMAN,' Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,** Senior District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable James K. Singleton, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Balvir Singh (“Singh”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. We are bound to accept an adverse credibility determination if at least one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the alien’s claim. *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004). Inconsistencies in an alien’s testimony go to the heart of the asylum claim if they relate to the events leading up to the petitioner’s departure and the reasons why the petitioner fled. *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).

Here, Singh testified inconsistently at his asylum hearing regarding several matters which pertain to the heart of his claim: (1) whether the year of his last arrest was immediately prior to his departure from India or a year earlier; (2) whether the length of his second arrest was three, fourteen or nineteen days, and (3) whether the police put salt or a red powder on his wounds and whether this occurred during his first or second detention.

Singh’s testimony also conflicted in many respects with answers previously given during his asylum interview. Although given an opportunity to explain the conflicting statements, Singh could not. *See Chen v. Ashcroft,*362 F.3d 611, 618 (9th Cir.2004). The record does not compel the conclusion that Singh was credible, and he therefore cannot establish eligibility for asylum.

Because Singh’s claims for withholding of removal and relief under CAT are based on the same statements that the IJ determined not to be credible, we must deny his petition as to those claims as well. *Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### State v. Ridgeway Brands Mfg. LLC

Case below: 184 N.C. App.-(17 July 2007)

No. 408A07

1. Defs’ (Ridgeway Brands Manufacturing, LLC and Heflin) NOA (Dissent) (COA06-422)

2. Defs’ (Ridgeway Brands Manufacturing, and Heflin) PDR as tp Additional Issues

3. Pit’s NOA (Dissent)

1. _

2. Denied 10/11/07

3. _
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Lee Williams, Appellant, v D.E. LaClair, as Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Decided May 12, 2009

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

September 5, 2014

h0825 

# Order

Clerk September 5, 2014

148419 & (117)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148419

COA: 301384

Genesee CC: 07

- 021845

- FC

TAJUAN MARNEZ WILLIAMS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The

application for leave to appeal the Octobe r 15, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented

should be reviewed by this Court.
**[KPMG Logo]****KPMG LLP**1601 Market Street  Philadelphia. PA 19103-2499 **Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**The Board of Members Regulus Group LLC: We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Regulus Group LLC has determined that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our proced ures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects. / s /   K P M G   L L P  February 12, 2008
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 Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Clinical Science Research and Development Service Cooperative Studies Scientific Evaluation Committee will be held on June 26, 2009, at The Ritz-Carlton, 1150 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. and end at 4 p.m.

The Committee advises the Chief Research and Development Officer through the Director of the Clinical Science Research and Development Service on the relevance and feasibility of proposed projects and the scientific validity and propriety of technical details, including protection of human subjects.

The session will be open to the public for approximately 30 minutes at the start of the meeting for the discussion of administrative matters and the general status of the program. The remaining portion of the meeting will be closed to the public for the Committee's review, discussion and evaluation of research and development applications.

During the closed portion of the meeting, discussions and recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, staff and consultant critiques of research proposals and similar documents and the medical records of patients who are study subjects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As provided by section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, closing portions of this meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).

Those who plan to attend should contact Dr. Grant Huang, Deputy Director, Cooperative Studies Program (125), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 461-1700.

Dated: May 6, 2009.
      ( print page 22808)    
By Direction of the Secretary:

E. Philip Riggin,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-11211 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
#### William Bravo, Appellant, v Jose Martinez et al., Respondents.

[963 NYS2d 82]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered March 16, 2012, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint alleging a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury as a result of the subject accident with evidence that plaintiff had normal range of motion in his neck, back and right shoulder, that he had preexisting injuries to each of those parts resulting from prior motor vehicle accidents in 2000, 2001 and 2006, and that his claimed shoulder injury was degenerative in origin *(see Mitrotti v Elia,*91 AD3d 449, 449-450 [1st Dept 2012]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of causation. Indeed, his expert’s report did not mention the back injuries sustained by plaintiff as a result of the 2006 accident, or adequately differentiate between the shoulder condition shown in the MRI taken after the 2000 accident and that shown in the MRI taken after the subject accident *(see*
      *459Mitrotti, 91 AD3d at 450; *see also Jimenez v Polanco,*88 AD3d 604 [1st Dept 2011]).

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs 90/180-day claim because, among other things, his bill of particulars alleged just two months of confinement to home as a result of the subject accident *(see Mitrotti,*91 AD3d at 450). Moreover, there was insufficient evidence that plaintiffs injuries were caused by the accident (see *Jimenez,*88 AD3d at 604).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Abdus-Salaam and Gische, JJ.