alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JAMES LYNN DICKSON, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-08-523 DECISION

On November 12, 2009, the defendant was sentenced for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence as follows: Count I: A commitment to the Department of Corrections for a period of five (5) years, to be placed in an appropriate community based program, facility or a State Correctional Institution for custody, care and treatment, for the offense of Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, a felony; and Count III: A commitment to the Yellowstone County Detention Facility for a term of six (6) months, for the offense of Theft, a misdemeanor. Counts I and III shall run concurrently with each other.

On May 6,2010, 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 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 *39presumed 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 6 th day of May, 2010.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
#### MITCHELL v. DELAWARE & H. R. CORP. et al.

Civ. A. No. 42-77.

United States District Court N. D. New York.

Feb. 11, 1953.

*188McClung, Peters & Simon, Albany, N. Y., for plaintiff. Homer E. Peters, Albany, N. Y., of counsel.

Dugan, Barkhuff & Dugan, Albany, N. Y., for defendant Delaware & H. R. Corp. Earl H. Barkhuff, Albany, N. Y., of counsel.

O’Connell & Aronowitz, Albany, N. Y., for defendant Canadian Nat. Ry. Co. Dennis P. Donovan, New York City, of counsel.

FOLEY, District Judge.

The defendant Canadian National Railway Company challenges the jurisdiction of this court over the subject matter of the claim set forth in the complaint as against it. The complaint is one charging joint and concurring acts of negligence against both defendants. Such acts of negligence are separately stated as to the negligence claimed against each. It is the contention of the defendant Canadian National Railway Company that because the complaint is drafted in such manner, there must be diversity or alienage as to both defendants or jurisdiction must fall. I do not agree.

The joinder is proper under Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., although it is-elemental that such procedural rule cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the court.. However, there is sufficient jurisdictional support for the claim against each defendant. The claim against the Delaware and Hudson Railroad Company admittedly is supported by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., and the claim against the defendant movant herein is supported by alien-age. It may be true that the complaint-does not spell out specifically alienage as the ground for jurisdiction as against, the Canadian National Railway Company but sufficient is present to adequately allege in the complaint jurisdiction upon that ground, Section 1332(a) (1), 28 U. S.C.A.; Rule 8(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.) pages 1634-1639.

Marrin v. Akron & B. Belt R. Co., D. C., 68 F.Supp. 853, although apparently not based upon previous authority, is similar enough in its facts in my judgment to support the holding here. Also, it is interesting to note in several authorities the emphasis placed upon the presence or absence of diversity and1 alienage to support claims in situations-not too unlike the one here. Most significant are the actions where the government is sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act and an individual defendant joined. Pearce v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D. C., 7 F.R.D. 420, affirmed, 3 Cir., 162 F.2d 524, certiorari denied 332 U.S. 765, 68 S.Ct. 71, 92 L.Ed. 350; Englehardt v. U. S., D.C., 69 F.Supp. 451; Wasserman v. Perugini, 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 305; New Orleans Public Belt R. Co. v. Wallace, 5 Cir., 173 F.2d 145.

The motion to dismiss is denied.
EXHIBIT 32
                                   ----------


                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 Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - VI A (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General
Partner and Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


          November 15, 2004                /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
          -----------------                --------------------
                Date                       Joseph M. Jayson,
                                           Individual General Partner and
                                           Principal Financial Officer
No. 913.

#### American Chicle Co. *v.*United States.

March 9, 1942.

*Mr. Erwin N. Griswold*for petitioner. *Solicitor General Fahy*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims granted.
EXHIBIT 23.0




                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of Armatron International, Inc.:



      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-3 (SEC File No. 2-80846 and SEC File No. 2-80950) and 
in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 2-80846) of Armatron 
International, Inc. of our reports dated December 9, 1996, on our audit of 
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of 
Armatron International, Inc. as of September 30, 1995 and 1995, and for the 
year ended September 30, 1996 and 1995, which report is incorporated by 
referenced or included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



Needham, Massachusetts
                                         R. J. GOLD & COMPANY P.C.

December 20, 1996
Notice is hereby given that, on September 4, 2009, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), DVD Copy Control Association (“DVD CCA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, China Hualu Group, Ltd., Dalian, People's Republic of China; JVC Kenwood Holdings, Inc., Kanagawa, Japan; and SIIX Corp., Osaka, Japan have been added as parties to this venture.                

Also, A&A Stamper House, Inc., Baldwin Park, CA; Evatone, Inc., Clearwater, FL; Kat Digital Corp., Taipei, Taiwan; Kenwood Corporation, Tokyo, Japan; Polar Frog Digital, Scottsdale, AZ; Sea Star Technology (Hong Kong) Company Ltd., Hong Kong, Hong Kong-China; Shenzhen Sea Star Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, People's Republic of China; Soaring Technology Co., Ltd., Taipei-Hsien, Taiwan; Victor Company of Japan, Limited, Kanagawa, Japan; and Zentek Technology Japan, Inc., Tokyo, Japan have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40727).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 5, 2009. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34364).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E9-25626 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
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.                  

###### Postal Service

## Board Votes to Close May 22, 2009, Meeting

In person and by telephone vote on May 22, 2009, a majority of the members contacted and voting, the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to close to public observation its meeting held in Washington, DC, via teleconference. The Board determined that no earlier public notice was possible.

## Items Considered

1. Strategic Issues.

2. Financial Matters.

3. Pricing.

4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.

5. Governors' Executive Session—discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance.

## General Counsel Certification

The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

## Contact Person for More Information

                    Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the                           ( print page 26746)                        Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at (202) 268-4800.                

Julie S. Moore,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-13063 Filed 6-1-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# Fuels/Fire Danger

## Current Conditions

Fuels & Fire Danger Briefing

## Fuels and Fire Behavior Advisories

**Current Fuels and Fire Behavior Advisories**

*Southern Great Plains (NW TX, W OK, SW KS, SE CO, & E NM)* - Updated 4/5 (originally issued 3/7/2024)

Fuels and Fire Behavior Advisory Template

Fuels and Fire Behavior Advisory Protocols

## National Pocket Card Database

Fire Danger PocketCard Data

## Wildland Fire Assessment System

Wildland Fire Assessment System (WFAS)

## National Fuel Moisture Database

National Fuel Moisture Database
Exhibit 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



     We consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-52125)  pertaining to the Ashland Inc.  Deferred
Compensation  and Stock Incentive Plan for Non-Employee  Directors,  in the
Registration  Statement  (Form S-8 No.  2-95022)  pertaining to the Ashland
Inc.  Amended Stock Incentive Plan for Key Employees,  in the  Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-32612)  pertaining to the Ashland Inc.  Employee
Savings  Plan,  in the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  33-26101)
pertaining  to  the  Ashland  Inc.   Long-Term   Incentive   Plan,  in  the
Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No.  33-55922)  pertaining to the Ashland
Inc. 1993 Stock Incentive Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-49907) pertaining to the Ashland Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, in the Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-62901)  pertaining to
the Ashland Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, in the Registration  Statement
(Form  S-8  No.  333-33617)  pertaining  to the  Ashland  Inc.  1997  Stock
Incentive  Plan, in the  Registration  Statement  (Form S-3 No.  333-78675)
pertaining  to the  registration  of 68,925  shares of Ashland Inc.  Common
Stock, in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-36842) pertaining to
the  registration  of 96,600 shares of Ashland Inc.  Common  Stock,  in the
Registration   Statement  (Form  S-3  No.  333-54762)   pertaining  to  the
registration  of 149,300  shares of Ashland  Inc.  Common  Stock and in the
Registration  Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-69138) pertaining to the offering
of $600,000,000 of Debt  Securities,  Preferred Stock,  Depository  Shares,
Common Stock and/or  Warrants of Ashland  Inc., of our report dated October
31,  2001,  with  respect  to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and
schedule of Ashland Inc.  and  consolidated  subsidiaries  included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2001.





Cincinnati, Ohio
November 28, 2001
FEGLI Life Insurance Chart

(for retirement purposes)

Basic = amount is equal to your annual rate of pay, rounded to the next $1,000 + $2,000

75% reduction At age 65, face value will decrease by 2% per

month until the insurance is 25% of its

original value. Then reduction stops. Cost is

free after age 65.

50% reduction At age 65, face value will decrease by 1% per

month until the insurance is 50% of its

original value. Then reduction stops. There

is a cost.

0% reduction Face value does not reduce. There is a cost.

Optional A = provides $10,000 in addl coverage

‐ Coverage is free after age 65, however, the value begins to reduce 2% per month until it

reaches 25% of its original value

Optional B = additional insurance available in multiples of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5times the annual

basic pay. (annual basic pay is rounded to the next higher $1,000 before multiplying)

Full reduction At age 65, will reduce 2% each month until

coverage ends (50 months). Cost is free.

No reduction Face value does not reduce. There is a cost.

Optional C = provides coverage for spouse and eligible children. Amounts, $5,000 for

spouse up to 5 times ($25,000) and for children $2,500 up to 5 times ($12,500)

Full reduction At age 65, will reduce 2% each month until

coverage ends (50 months). Cost is free.

No reduction Face value does not reduce. There is a cost.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose E. HINOJOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-40455

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 District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jose E. Hinojosa, Winton, NC, pro se.

*355Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose E. Hinojosa 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). Hinojosa has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous 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 Cm. 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.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 103 

To correct the enrollment of the bill H.R. 889. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 22, 2006 

Mr. STEVENS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

To correct the enrollment of the bill H.R. 889. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 889, 

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 

4 following corrections: 

5 (1) In the table of contents in section 2, strike 

6 the item relating to section 414 and insert the fol7 lowing: 

‘‘Sec. 414. Navigational safety of certain facilities.’’. 

8 (2) Strike section 414 and insert the following: 

9 ‘‘SEC. 414. NAVIGATIONAL SAFETY OF CERTAIN FACILITIES. 

10 ‘‘(a) CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES.—In re11 viewing a lease, easement, or right-of-way for an offshore 


HMOORE on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•SCON 103 ATS 

1 wind energy facility in Nantucket Sound under section 

2 8(p) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 

3 1337(p)), not later than 60 days before the date estab4 lished by the Secretary of the Interior for publication of 

5 a draft environmental impact statement, the Commandant 

6 of the Coast Guard shall specify the reasonable terms and 

7 conditions the Commandant determines to be necessary to 

8 provide for navigational safety with respect to the pro9 posed lease, easement, or right-of-way and each alternative 

10 to the proposed lease, easement, or right-of-way consid11 ered by the Secretary. 

12 ‘‘(b) INCLUSION OF NECESSARY TERMS AND CONDI13 TIONS.—In granting a lease, easement, or right-of-way for 

14 an offshore wind energy facility in Nantucket Sound under 

15 section 8(p) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 

16 U.S.C. 1337(p)), the Secretary shall incorporate in the 

17 lease, easement, or right-of-way reasonable terms and con18 ditions the Commandant determines to be necessary to 

19 provide for navigational safety.’’. 

Æ 


HMOORE on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Sample Audit Checklist for CJIS Security Policy (CJISSECPOL) Area 12 

# QUESTION YES NO N/A STANDARD COMMENT 

Page 1 of 1 

5.12 Personnel Security 

1. Based on inquiry and record examination, does 

the Tribe or TGRA conduct personnel screening 

for individuals requiring unescorted access to 

unencrypted Criminal Justice Information 

(CJI)/Criminal History Record Information 

(CHRI) consistent with Tribal or TGRA policy 

and or regulations? 

____ ____ ____ CSP 5.12.1(1)(c) 

2. Based on record examination, does the Tribe or 

TGRA maintain a list of personnel who have 

been authorized unescorted access to unencrypted 

CJI/CHRI? 

Has the Tribe/TGRA provided a current copy of 

the access list to the NIGC Information Security 

Officer (ISO) or has it done so previously? 

____ 

____ 

____ 

____ 

____ 

____ 

CSP 5.12.1(7) 

CSP 5.9.1.2 

3. Based on inquiry and record examination, upon 

termination of personnel by the Tribe or TGRA, 

does the Tribe or TGRA have an auditable 

process to notify the NIGC ISO and take other 

action, if any, to ensure access to CJI/CHRI is 

terminated? 

If the individual was an employee of a 

Contractor, the employer shall notify the 

Tribe/TGRA affected by the personnel change. 

And the Tribe/TGRA will notify the NIGC ISO 

of the termination. 

____ ____ ____ CSP 5.12.2 

4. Based on inquiry and record examination, does 

the Tribe or TGRA review CJI/CHRI access 

authorizations when personnel are reassigned or 

transferred to other positions within the Tribe or 

TGRA? Specifically does the Tribe/TGRA 

initiate appropriate actions such as closing and 

establishing accounts and changing system access 

authorizations? 

____ ____ ____ CSP 5.12.3 

5. Based on inquiry and record examination, does 

the Tribe or TGRA employ a formal sanctions 

process for personnel failing to comply with 

established information security policies and 

procedures? 

____ ____ ____ CSP 5.12.4
*Friday, May 23, 1997*

MOTION DOCKET

96-1886.

#### Toledo v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 95-1140-EL-COI and 95-299-EL-AIR. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Upon consideration of the joint motion for a stay of proceedings by city of Toledo and intervening appellees, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and Toledo Edison Company,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for a stay of proceedings be, and hereby is, granted.
97-456.

#### State v. Miller.

Montgomery App. No. 15481. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.