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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42443

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JAYSON LEE HOF,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 555

Filed: July 17, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of forty years with ten years 

determinate for felony driving under the influence of alcohol with sentencing 

enhancement, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jayson Lee Hof pled guilty to felony driving under the influence of alcohol with 

sentencing enhancement. Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005, 19-2514. The district court 

sentenced Hof to a unified term of forty years with ten years determinate. Hof appeals asserting 

that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

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

Therefore, Hof’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

862 

KA 14-01518 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PAUL S. TURLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

PAUL S. TURLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S.

Farkas, J.), rendered July 18, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of bail jumping in the first degree (Penal Law

§ 215.57). The record establishes that defendant knowingly,

voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see

generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver

encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see People

v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Defendant contends in his pro se supplemental brief that the

indictment is invalid because he was allegedly arrested prior to the

expiration of the 30-day “grace period” provided in Penal Law §

215.57, and thus that reversal is required (cf. People v Shurn, 71

AD2d 610, 610, affd 50 NY2d 914). That contention is not properly

before us. “Because the [indictment] is not jurisdictionally

defective, defendant’s challenge[] to the [indictment is] forfeited by

defendant’s plea of guilty . . . , and in any event the valid waiver

of the right to appeal encompasses [that] nonjurisdictional

challenge[]” (People v Rossborough, 101 AD3d 1775, 1775-1776). 

Entered: July 10, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
1 

CAUSE NO. 04-14-00621-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF § IN THE 49TH JUDICIAL 

 § 

CARLOS JAVIER TOVAR, § DISTRICT COURT OF 

 § 

A CHILD § ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS 

APPELLEE’S THIRD MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF

Appellee’s FRANCISCO TOVAR GUAJARDO, JR. files this motion for extension of 

time and requires an additional thirty days to file his Appellee’s brief, extending the briefing 

deadline to August 17, 2015. This is Appellee’s Third and last request for an extension on this 

deadline. This extension is not sought for delay. 

Appellee’s has been unable to finalize his brief due to his counsel working extensively 

Appellee’s brief in another case filed also with this court. In addition Appellee’s counsel has had 

numerous court settings on other contested matters in and out of her primary county of practice. 

Then moreover, Appellee’s counsel is a sole practitioner with an extensive case load and require 

additional time to complete the brief in this case. These obligations have hindered the undersigned 

counsel’s ability to complete the brief for this cause by the July 17, 2015 deadline. 

Prayer 

 Appellee’s FRANCISCO TOVAR GUAJARDO, JR. prays that his briefing deadline be 

extended to August 17, 2015. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 /S/FLOR E. FLORES 

 Flor E. Flores 

 State Bar No. 24065235 

 THE LAW FIRM OF FLOR E. FLORES, PLLC

 700 N. Flores St., Ste. E 

 Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 

 Tel: (956)263-1786 

 Fax: (956)263-1750 

ACCEPTED

04-14-00621-cv

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

7/14/2015 11:16:30 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/14/2015 11:16:30 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
2

ffloreslaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Appellees Francisco Tovar

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 14, 2015, a true and correct copy of this document was served 

upon counsel for Appellees via electronic service. 

Leticia Garcia

Leticia.garcia.atty@gmail.com

Counsel for Irma I. Perez-Chapa

Ricardo Pumarejo Jr. 

rpumarejo@ktattorneys.com

Counsel for Maria Del Socorro Gonzalez and Cesario Gonzalez 

/S/FLOR E. FLORES

Flor E. Flores
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         786,989
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      28,340,552
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,597,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,353,443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,030,683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,353,443
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,227,447
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,429,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             712,094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (887,393)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (887,393)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (887,393)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (14.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer, 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 Alamo Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Philip Mann, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alamo Energy Corp., and will be retained by Alamo Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Philip MannPhilip Mann

Chief Financial Officer

March 22, 2010
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kevin Hogge, Chief Financial Officer of CRC Health Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2006



|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ KEVIN HOGGE                                                                                   
|Kevin Hogge Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CRC
Health Corporation and will be retained by CRC Health Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 24

- 00100

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF S.G. AND H.G.,

C HILDREN §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 231st District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 231

- 554711

- 14 )

April 11, 2024

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in t his case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
H. Res. 549 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 9, 2020. 

Whereas the principle that an informed and engaged electorate is critical to a vibrant democracy is deeply rooted 

in our laws of free speech and underpins the virtues on 

which we established our Constitution, ‘‘in Order to form 

a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 

Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the 

general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 

ourselves and our Posterity * * *’’; 

Whereas having independent, diverse, and local media that 

provide exposure to a broad range of viewpoints and the 

ability to contribute to the political debate is central to 

sustaining that informed engagement; 

Whereas it is in the public interest to encourage source, content, and audience diversity on our Nation’s shared telecommunications and media platforms; 

Whereas the survival of small, independent, and diverse 

media outlets that serve diverse audiences and local 

media markets is essential to preserving local culture and 

building understanding on important community issues 

that impact the daily lives of residents; 

Whereas research by the American Society of News Editors, 

the Radio Television Digital News Association, the Pew 
2 

•HRES 549 EH 

Research Center, and others has documented the continued challenges of increasing diversity among all types of 

media entities; 

Whereas with increasing media experience and sophistication, 

it is even more important to have minority participation 

in local media to ensure a diverse range of information 

sources are available and different ideas and viewpoints 

are expressed to strengthen social cohesion among different communities; and 

Whereas the constriction in small, independent, and diverse 

media outlets and limited participation of diverse populations in media ownership and decisionmaking are combining to negatively impact our goal of increasing local 

civic engagement and civic knowledge through increased 

voter participation, membership in civic groups, and 

knowledge of local political and civil information: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) reaffirms its commitment to diversity as a core 

tenet of the public interest standard in media policy; and 

(2) pledges to work with media entities and diverse 

stakeholders to develop common ground solutions to 

eliminate barriers to media diversity. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 0389

_____________________________
D INO R AY R EAVES , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie M. Kinsey , Judge

.

May 14, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B

. L. T HOMAS , M.K

. T HOMAS , and T ANENBAUM , JJ.
, concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Dino Ray Reaves, Jr. pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
@conference{1207261,
  author = {Selvarajah Ramesh and Lisa Choe and Matthew Hoehler and Matthew Bundy},
  title = {FIRE RESILIENCE OF STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE FLOOR SYSTEMS},
  year = {2022},
  month = {2022-11-30 05:11:00},
  publisher = {Proceedings of the 12th international conference on structures in fire, Hung Hom, HK},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935782},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22178072},
  language = {en},
}
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 698 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the importance 

of assisting justice-involved veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2019 

Ms. KENDRA S. HORN of Oklahoma (for herself, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. 

TAKANO, Mr. BRINDISI, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. ROSE of New York, Ms. 

TORRES SMALL of New Mexico, Mr. SWALWELL of California, Mr. CASE, 

Mr. TRONE, and Mr. LARSEN of Washington) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and 

in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on 

the importance of assisting justice-involved veterans. 

Whereas almost 200,000 veterans are incarcerated; 

Whereas more than half of justice-involved veterans have either a mental health issue or a substance abuse disorder; 

Whereas a substantial number of justice-involved veterans are 

homeless or at risk for homelessness; 

Whereas many veterans have difficulty finding work and reintegrating into society after living in formalized environments; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 698 IH 

Whereas veterans who get involved in the criminal justice system may be at a higher risk for suicide; 

Whereas justice-involved veterans in prison cannot receive 

medical services furnished by the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, but may receive outreach services; 

Whereas justice-involved veterans have more specialized needs 

upon reentry into society; 

Whereas veterans treatment courts serve only veterans who 

are charged with nonviolent crimes and are in need of 

mental health or substance abuse treatment; 

Whereas prosecutors work with defense attorneys to negotiate 

whether a veteran’s case should be heard in the treatment court, and veterans go through counseling funded 

by the Department of Veterans Affairs; 

Whereas once the veteran finishes the program, which can 

last from a few months to years, all charges are dropped; 

and 

Whereas only approximately 500 counties have veterans 

treatment courts: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the expansion of the veterans 

3 treatment court program; 

4 (2) encourages deeper studies into the efficacy 

5 of these programs and best practices; and 

6 (3) reaffirms the commitment of the House of 

7 Representatives to helping all veterans reintegrating 

8 to civilian life. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<ARTICLE>5
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                           606,100
<SECURITIES>                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                    262,100
<ALLOWANCES>                     0
<INVENTORY>                      412,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 1,309,400
<PP&E>                           1,696,200
<DEPRECIATION>                   1,647,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,410,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            306,500
<BONDS>                          1,212,300
<COMMON>                         38,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      0
<OTHER-SE>                       1,522,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,410,300
<SALES>                          1,943,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 1,943,700
<CGS>                            1,297,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    1,678,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               68,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  216,400
<INCOME-TAX>                     1,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              214,700
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                     214,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    .058
<EPS-DILUTED>                    .058


        

</TABLE>
[890 NYS2d 758]

#### Marco Novakovic, Respondent, v Peter Novakovic, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

October 19, 2009

*95APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jack L. Glasser, EC.,*Jamaica *(Patrick T. McGuire*of counsel), for appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order is reversed without costs and occupant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition is granted.

In this licensee summary proceeding (RPAPL 713 [7]), Peter Novakovic (occupant) moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the grounds that petitioner had no standing to maintain the proceeding, and that occupant’s father, who has a life estate in the property, had granted occupant a license to live in the subject premises for the duration of the father’s life. The Civil Court denied the motion, finding that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the father had granted occupant such a license. We reverse.

The deeds submitted to the court clearly state that occupant’s father, a nonparty to this proceeding, has a life estate in the property. Indeed, petitioner does not dispute that the father is a life tenant, and that petitioner is a remainderman. *“A*life estate is more than merely a right of enjoyment. Rather, a life tenant is entitled to possession, control, and enjoyment of the property for the duration of his or her life” (56 NY Jur 2d, Estates, Powers, and Restraints on Alienation § 35). The “substance of a life estate consists in the life tenant’s right to exclude all others from the possession of the subject property for the duration of his or her own life” *(Torre v Giorgio,*51 AD3d 1010, 1011 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Because the life tenant has the exclusive right to the property during his or her life, “the remainderman or reversioner has no right to possession or any present right of enjoyment, or tangible or physical ownership, of the land” during the term of the life tenancy (56 NY Jur 2d, Estates, Powers, and Restraints on Alienation § 186). Therefore, as a remainderman, petitioner has no right to possession of the premises for the duration of the father’s life and, thus, no standing to bring this summary

*96proceeding to recover possession. Accordingly, occupant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted and the petition dismissed.

Golia, J.E, Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
SIXTH AMENDMENT
                             TO THE
                    EASTERN UTILITIES ASSOCIATES
                       EMPLOYEES' SAVINGS PLAN



WHEREAS, Eastern Utilities Associates (the "Employer") previously established
the Eastern Utilities Associates Employees' Savings Plan (the "Plan") effective
January 1, 1982; and

        WHEREAS, the Employer amended and restated the Plan effective January
1, 1989; and

        WHEREAS, the Employer reserved the right to amend the Plan from time to
time under Section 13.2 of the Plan.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with and pursuant to the foregoing, the
Plan is amended, effective October 1, 1998, as follows:

        Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the first
sentence of said section in its entirety and by substituting therefore the
following:

        "Each Participating Employer shall make a Matching Contribution on
behalf of each of its Participants in an amount equal to 100% of the first 3%
of Earnings with respect to which such Participant makes Pre-Tax Participant
Contribution(s)."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EASTERN UTILITIES ASSOCIATES has caused this instrument to
be executed and delivered on its behalf by the undersigned on this
28th day of September, 1998.


ATTEST:                                 EASTERN UTILITIES ASSOCIATES


/s/Clifford J. Hebert, Jr.              By:/s/Donald G. Pardus
   Clifford J. Hebert, Jr.                    Donald G. Pardus
Secretary


                                        Its:  Chairman
(Corporate Seal)