alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### *29STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. ERINN WHITE, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-08-50 DECISION

On October 22, 2009, the defendant was sentenced for violation of the conditions of a deferred sentence for the following offenses: Count I: Twenty (20) years in the Montana Women’s Prison, with ten (10) years suspended, for the offense of Burglary, a felony; Count II: Twenty (20) years in the Montana Women’s Prison, with ten (10) years suspended, for the offense of Forgery, a felony; and Count III: A commitment to the Missoula County Detention Facility for a term of one (1) year, with all time suspended, for the offense of Forgery, a misdemeanor; Count IV: A commitment to the Missoula County Detention Facility for a term of one (1) year, with all time suspended, for the offense of Theft, a misdemeanor; Count V: A commitment to the Missoula County Detention Facility for a term of one (1) year, with all time suspended, for the offense of Forgery, a misdemeanor; and Count VI: A commitment to the Missoula County Detention Facility for a term of one (1) year, with all time suspended, for the offense of Theft, Second Offense, a misdemeanor. Counts I — VI shall run concurrently with each other.

On April 2, 2010, 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 Kris Copenhaver. 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 she understood this and stated that she 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 2nd day of April, 2010.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
Filed 10/16/07 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2007 ND 155

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Mark Knight, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20070047

Appeal from the District Court of Barnes County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable John T. Paulson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Bradley A. Cruff (on brief), State’s Attorney, Courthouse, 230 Fourth Street NW, Room 301, Valley City, N.D. 58072, for plaintiff and appellee.

Steven D. Mottinger (on brief), Johnson, Ramstad & Mottinger, PLLP, 15 Ninth Street South, Fargo, N.D. 58103-1830, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Knight

No. 20070047

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Mark Knight appeals from a criminal judgment following a bench trial in which he was found guilty of gross sexual imposition, a Class A felony.  Knight argues there was insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict.  He also argues the district court erred in failing to rule on a N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State’s case-in-chief.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7), holding there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and concluding any error in failing to rule on the Rule 29 motion was harmless in this case, because the State presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction in its case-in-chief.  See State v. Olson, 244 N.W.2d 718, 721 (N.D. 1976) (if the evidence is sufficient to meet the standard under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 when the State rests, “then any error in failing to rule promptly is harmless”).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to




§906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
      connection with the filing with Securities and Exchange Commission of the
      Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ending September 30, 2007, (the “Report”), I, Catherine M.
      Davidson, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




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




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




/s/
      Catherine M.
      Davidson


Catherine
      M. Davidson


Controller,
      Principal Financial Officer




January
      28, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00295-CV

JOE M. MCHANEY APPELLANT

V.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 048-272913-14

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On January 15, 2016, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed 

as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P. 

38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless 

appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

Because appellant's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 18, 2016
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1)
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of COMFORCE Corporation for the year ended
December 29, 2002 as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.

Signed this 9th day of April, 2003.

/s/ John C. Fanning
----------------------------------------------------
John C. Fanning,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Harry V. Maccarrone
----------------------------------------------------
Harry V. Maccarrone,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Beverly GEBHARDT (Administratrix of the estate of Bradley H. Simmons), Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the AIR FORCE, Respondent.

No. 05-3332.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 13, 2006.

Before RADER, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and LINN, Circuit Judge.

*997JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederick E. Walker, Appellant.

Submitted April 18, 2011;

decided April 28, 2011

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 dismissed as academic upon the ground that a Justice of the Appellate Division granted defendant leave to appeal by order dated April 14, 2011.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Financial Statements at March 31, 1998 (unaudited) and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                        2      
<SECURITIES>                                  0      
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,581      
<ALLOWANCES>                                (79)     
<INVENTORY>                               3,383      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             62      
<PP&E>                                    1,121      
<DEPRECIATION>                             (349)     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            5,771      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,367      
<BONDS>                                       0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0    
<PREFERRED>                                   0      
<COMMON>                                     54      
<OTHER-SE>                                    0      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              5,771      
<SALES>                                  14,264      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         14,264      
<CGS>                                    10,938      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            10,938      
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          2,889      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          103      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             334      
<INCOME-TAX>                                 12      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         322      
<DISCONTINUED>                                0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0      
<CHANGES>                                     0      
<NET-INCOME>                                322      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.07   
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.06   
                               


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 108 (Monday, June 8, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13242]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1, 20 and 25

[TD 9448]
RIN 1545-BH96; RIN 1545-BI56


Use of Actuarial Tables in Valuing Annuities, Interests for Life 
or Terms of Years, and Remainder or Reversionary Interests; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final and temporary regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final and temporary 
regulations (TD 9448, that were published in the Federal Register on 
Thursday, May 7, 2009 (74 FR 21438). This regulation relates to the use 
of actuarial tables in valuing annuities, interests for life or terms 
of years, and remainder or reversionary interests.

DATES: This correction is effective on June 8, 2009 and is applicable 
beginning May 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mayer R. Samuels, (202) 622-3090 (not 
a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The final and temporary regulations (TD 9448) that are the subject 
of this correction is under section 2031of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, TD 9448 contains errors that may prove to be 
misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the final and temporary regulations 
(TD 9448), that were the subject of FR Doc. E9-10111, is corrected as 
follows:
    1. On page 21439, in the preamble under the paragraph heading 
``Background'', in the table ``CROSS REFERENCE TO REGULATION 
SECTIONS'', the fourth column under section 2031, the third line, the 
language ``Table S (5/1/99-05/01/99) and Life'' is corrected to read 
``Table S (5/1/99-04/30/09) and Life''.
    2. On page 21439, in the preamble under the paragraph heading, 
``Transitional Rules'', in the first column, nine lines from the 
bottom, the language, ``on or after May 7, 2009, and before July'' is 
corrected to read ``on or after May 1, 2009, and before July''.

Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal 
Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, Procedure and 
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-13242 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PAUL ANTHONY CATALDO

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1446

[ November 28, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Samantha Schosberg Feuer , Judge; L.T. Case No.

50 2015CF006127AXXXMB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T.

Acuñ a, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

K UNTZ , J

.

Paul Anthony Cataldo appeals his conviction for battery on a person 65 years of age or older. We affirm without comment with one exception. Cataldo argues, and the State concedes, that the circuit court erred in denying his Florida Rule of Crimina l Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error

.

Specifically, Cataldo argues there are three errors in the written order of probation:

1.) T he order of probation incorrectly states that Cataldo entered a guilty plea when, in fact, he was convicted by jury;

2.) T he order of probation refers to Cataldo’s conviction on

count one as “EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICE WHILE

COMMITTING BATTERY ON PERSON 65 YEARS OF AGE2 OR OLDER” when, in fact, the jury did not find evidence of prejudice; and

3.) T he order of probation indicates a probationary period of “3 YEARS, CONCURRENT WITH COUNTS 1,2

– FIRST 6

MONTHS OF PROBATION TO BE SERVED ON COMMUNITY CONTROL II WITH A MONITOR” when, in fact, the court ordered one year of probation for count two

.

The Stat e concedes that these three errors should be corrected. Thus,

we affirm Cataldo’s conviction and sentence but remand for the court to correct the three errors in the order of probation. Cataldo need not be present for the court’s entry of the corrected o rder of probation. See Sirota

v. State , 977 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Affirmed and remanded for correction of order of probation

.

T

AYLOR and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3075 

To withdraw certain Federal land and interests in that land from location, 

entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under the 

mineral and geothermal leasing laws. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 4, 2010 

Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To withdraw certain Federal land and interests in that land 

from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws 

and disposition under the mineral and geothermal leasing 

laws. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘North Fork Watershed 

5 Protection Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3075 IS

1 (1) ELIGIBLE FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘eli2 gible Federal land’’ means any federally owned land 

3 or interest in land depicted on the Map as within the 

4 North Fork Flathead Watershed. 

5 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘Map’’ means the Bureau 

6 of Land Management map entitled ‘‘North Fork 

7 Federal Lands Withdrawal Area’’ and dated Feb8 ruary 27, 2010. 

9 (b) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, 

10 the eligible Federal land is withdrawn from— 

11 (1) all forms of location, entry, and patent 

12 under the mining laws; and 

13 (2) disposition under all laws relating to min14 eral or geothermal leasing. 

15 (c) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The Map shall be made 

16 available to the public at each appropriate office of the 

17 Bureau of Land Management by not later than 30 days 

18 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Hector J. Martinez, Appellant, v Maria C. Martinez, Respondent.

Submitted July 26, 2010;

decided September 21, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,830]


Maggy London International, Ltd., Production Department, New 
York, NY; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 21, 2009, in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of workers at Maggy London International, 
Ltd., Production Department, New York, New York.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13455 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Document

CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS HAVE BEEN REDACTED FROM THIS EXHIBIT BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH (i) NOT MATERIAL AND (ii) IS THE TYPE THAT THE COMPANY TREATS AS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL. INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN OMITTED HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THIS DOCUMENT WITH A PLACEHOLDER IDENTIFIED BY THE MARK "[***]".


Supplemental Agreement No. 20


to


Purchase Agreement No. 3866


between


The Boeing Company


and


Alaska Airlines, Inc.


Relating to Boeing Models 737-8, 737-9, and 737-10 Aircraft




    THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 20 (Supplemental Agreement No. 20), entered into as of May 13, 2022, is by and between THE BOEING COMPANY (Boeing) and ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. (Customer) (Boeing and Customer collectively, Parties). All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Purchase Agreement.


    WHEREAS, the Parties hereto entered into Purchase Agreement No. 3866 dated October 10, 2012 (as amended and supplemented, Purchase Agreement) relating to, among other things, Boeing model 737-9 aircraft (737-9 Aircraft) (collectively Aircraft);


WHEREAS, Customer has requested and Boeing agrees to accelerate the delivery month for two (2) 737-9 Aircraft from [***] and [***] into [***]; and 


WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Purchase Agreement as set forth hereinafter to reflect the agreement of the Parties.


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the Parties agree to amend the Purchase Agreement as follows:


1.Table of Contents, Table and Supplemental Exhibit.


1.1The “Table of Contents” in the Purchase Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the revised Table of Contents, attached hereto and incorporated into the Purchase Agreement, to reflect the changes made in this Supplemental Agreement No. 20.




1.2“Table 1-B-1 to Purchase Agreement No. PA-03866” in the Purchase Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the revised “Table 1-B-1 to 
P.A. 3866
ASA    SA-20-1





Supplemental Agreement No. 20 to
Purchase Agreement No. 3866



Purchase Agreement No. PA-03866,” attached hereto and incorporated into the Purchase   Agreement.


1.3Supplemental Exhibit BFE1 in the Purchase Agreement, entitled “Buyer Furnished Equipment Variables,” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the revised Supplemental Exhibit BFE1, attached hereto and incorporated into the Purchase Agreement.


2.Miscellaneous.   


2.1    [***].


2.2     [***]. 


EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE as of the day and year first written above and below.


									
	THE BOEING COMPANY
	
	By	
	
	Its	
	
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO this
	
	Date:	
	
	ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.
	
	By	
	
	Its	




P.A. 3866
ASA    SA-20-2
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UNITED STATES Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that:

(1)

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |                                      
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2008 |                                      
|                        | /s/ Frank B. Manning                 
|                        | Frank B. Manning                     
|                        | President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 108 (Monday, June 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13289]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special 
Emphasis Panel, July 13, 2009, 8 a.m. to July 13, 2009, 5 p.m., 
Washingtonian Center Courtyard, 204 Boardwalk Place, Gaithersburg, MD 
20878 which was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2009, 74 
FR 12248.
    The meeting has been changed to July 14, 2009, from 8 a.m. to 4 
p.m. The location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the 
public.

    Dated: June 1, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-13289 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P