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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37804

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBERT W. HAMPTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 358

Filed: February 11, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of thirty years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of fifteen years, for lewd conduct with a minor under 

sixteen and concurrent unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of fifteen years, for sexual abuse of a minor under sixteen,

affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Robert W. Hampton pled guilty to one count of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen,

I.C. § 18-1508, and one count of sexual abuse of a minor under sixteen, I.C. § 18-1506. In 

exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced 

Hampton to a unified term of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen 

years, for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen and a concurrent unified term of twenty-five 

years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for sexual abuse of a minor under 

sixteen. Hampton appeals.
2

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-

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, Hampton’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41054-41055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18313]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]

Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Stepan Company

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and 
applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the 
issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 
1301.34(a) on or before September 28, 2017. Such persons may also file 
a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 
1301.43 on or before September 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for 
hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All 
request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearing on 
applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 
3417 (January 25, 2007).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his 
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority 
to exercise all necessary functions with

[[Page 41055]]

respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, 
incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, 
dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other 
than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation 
of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of 
the DEA Diversion Control Division (``Assistant Administrator'') 
pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on 
January 18, 2017, Stepan Company, Natural Products Dept., 100 W. Hunter 
Avenue, Maywood, New Jersey 07607 applied to be registered as an 
importer of coca leaves (9040), a basic class of controlled substance 
listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance in bulk 
for the manufacture of controlled substance for distribution to its 
customers.

    Dated: August 21, 2017.
Demetra Ashley,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-18313 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```
Exhibit
        23.1
 
 
 **CONSENT
        OF
        INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
        333-140921, 333-56918, 333-133194, 333-121971, and 333-140744 on Form S-3,
        333-136911 on Form S-4, and 333-140912, 333-63101, 333-71990, 333-71992,
        333-81134, 333-93193, 333-127890, and 333-127889 on Form S-8 of our report
        dated
        February 26, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements and
        financial statement schedules of Integrys Energy Group, Inc. (formerly WPS
        Resources Corporation) and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified
        opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of
        new
        accounting standards), and our report dated February 26, 2007 relating to
        management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
        reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
        December 31, 2006 of Integrys Energy Group, Inc.
 
 
 /s/
        Deloitte &
Touche LLP
 
 Milwaukee,
        Wisconsin
 February
        27,
        2007
Nicor Gas Company
                                                                       Form 10-K
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nicor Gas Company (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

      (i)  the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
   twelve month period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
   with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
   the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


  Dated: February 28, 2005     /s/ RICHARD L. HAWLEY
         -----------------     ------------------------------------
                               Richard L. Hawley
                               Executive Vice President and Chief
                               Financial Officer
#### John Ted BAREFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF IRS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-13312

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 18, 2013.

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Ted Barefield, proceeding *pro se,*appeals the tax court’s order granting summary judgment to the Internal Revenue Service and concluding that he owes a tax deficiency on social security income he received in 2008. Barefield contends that: (1) the social security benefits he received are not taxable income because they are disability benefits; (2) the tax court should not have granted the IRS’s motion for summary judgment without allowing him to argue his case in person; and (3) the IRS improperly assessed interest on his tax deficiency. Those are the same contentions he made with respect to social security income he received in 2007. In *Barefield v. Commissioner,*No. 12-10462, 2012 WL 6621305 (11th Cir. Dec. 18, 2012), we held that those contentions were without merit. The law governing those issues did not change between 2007 and 2008 in any way that changes the outcome of this case. As a result, we reject Barefield’s contentions for the reasons stated in our earlier opinion.

Barefield also contends that the IRS improperly assessed a failure-to-pay penalty on his tax deficiency. A failure-to-pay penalty is “separate and outside the scope of [Barefield’s] petition to the Tax Court.” *Comm’r v. McCoy,*484 U.S. 3, 7, 108 S.Ct. 217, 219, 98 L.Ed.2d 2 (1987). On appeal, we cannot decide matters outside the scope of the tax court’s decision. *Id.*Accordingly, Barefield’s contention that the failure-to-pay penalty was improper is not properly before this Court.

AFFIRMED.
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2023_11_3_13_46" style="width: 95%;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 1. Total private employment for nonprofit and for-profit establishments, 2007–17</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="vertical-align: middle; min-width: 80px;" rowspan="1" scope="col">Year</th>
<th scope="col">Nonprofit</th>
<th scope="col">For-profit</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2007</p>
</th>
<td>10,534,183</td>
<td>103,478,038</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2008</p>
</th>
<td>10,837,928</td>
<td>102,350,715</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2009</p>
</th>
<td>10,997,668</td>
<td>95,949,436</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2010</p>
</th>
<td>11,111,096</td>
<td>95,090,136</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2011</p>
</th>
<td>11,265,233</td>
<td>96,919,562</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2012</p>
</th>
<td>11,426,870</td>
<td>99,218,999</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2013</p>
</th>
<td>11,599,269</td>
<td>101,359,065</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2014</p>
</th>
<td>11,746,589</td>
<td>103,822,097</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2015</p>
</th>
<td>11,945,181</td>
<td>106,362,536</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2016</p>
</th>
<td>12,245,030</td>
<td>108,259,592</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2017</p>
</th>
<td>12,488,563</td>
<td>109,898,002</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2023_11_3_13_46_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="3">
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 816 

To amend the Coquille Restoration Act to clarify certain provisions relating 

to the management of the Coquille Forest. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 19, 2015 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; 

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

A BILL 

To amend the Coquille Restoration Act to clarify certain 

provisions relating to the management of the Coquille Forest. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO COQUILLE RESTORATION 

4 ACT. 

5 Section 5(d) of the Coquille Restoration Act (25 

6 U.S.C. 715c(d)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the 

8 following: 

9 ‘‘(5) MANAGEMENT.— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 816 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara2 graph (B), the Secretary, acting through the 

3 Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, shall 

4 manage the Coquille Forest in accordance with 

5 the laws pertaining to the management of In6 dian trust land. 

7 ‘‘(B) ADMINISTRATION.— 

8 ‘‘(i) UNPROCESSED LOGS.—Unproc9 essed logs harvested from the Coquille For10 est shall be subject to the same Federal 

11 statutory restrictions on export to foreign 

12 nations that apply to unprocessed logs har13 vested from Federal land. 

14 ‘‘(ii) SALES OF TIMBER.—Notwith15 standing any other provision of law, all 

16 sales of timber from land subject to this 

17 subsection shall be advertised, offered, and 

18 awarded according to competitive bidding 

19 practices, with sales being awarded to the 

20 highest responsible bidder.’’; 

21 (2) by striking paragraph (9); and 

22 (3) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through 

23 (12) as paragraphs (9) through (11), respectively. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**     The undersigned executive officer of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc. (the “Registrant”)hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2005fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.                  /s/ Douglas J. Timmerman   Douglas J. Timmerman, Chairman of the Board, President   and Chief Executive Officer   November 7, 2005**Note:**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc. and will be retainedby Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
44
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 780 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 780

         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 18, 2015

 Mr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Blumenthal) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cameras in the Courtroom Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting at the end the following:
``Sec. 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings
    ``The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open 
sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the 
majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case 
would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of 
the parties before the Court.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 45 of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the 
following:

``678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Wisconsin Gas Company Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements and the
related footnotes.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      387,616
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         166,858
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       119,305
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 673,779
<COMMON>                                             9
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      121,978
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             95,107
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 215,558
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           158,244
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      160,000
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  89,759
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 210,218
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  673,779
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      439,477
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            15,609
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     385,911
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     401,520
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         37,957
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,078
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  39,035
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        12,601
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,434
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   26,434
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        26,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           72
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          51,520
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,718,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,467,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        73,000
<INVENTORY>                                      8,888,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,565,000
<PP&E>                                           8,841,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,434,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,417,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,368,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,595,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,155,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,417,000
<SALES>                                         19,670,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,670,000
<CGS>                                           11,934,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,891,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    12,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 252,000   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    581,000   
<INCOME-TAX>                                       228,000   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                353,000   
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0         
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0         
<CHANGES>                                                0         
<NET-INCOME>                                       353,000   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.09      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.09      
                                                   

</TABLE>
#### Preston *v.*Smith.1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri,*

May 26, 1885.)

Bill to Quiet Title—Life-Tenant and Remainder-Man.

A remainder-man cannot maintain a bill against a life-tenant to prevent liis denying tlie former’s interest in the estate, and from making leases extending beyond the term of liis natural life.

In Equity.

*Henry Hitchcock,*for complainant.

*John Wickham*and *Given Campbell,*for defendant.

1

 Reported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.

Treat, J.

Tlie bill alleges that the defendant is a tenant for life, and the plaintiff remainder-man in fee, expectant on certain impossible conditions to the contrary. It charges that she has made, and is about to make, leases extending beyond the term of her natural life; and also is asserting that the defendant has no title or interest in the estate. The court is prayed to enjoin said defendant ffom making such leases, and from asserting that defendant has no title or interest in the estate. The proposition is somewhat novel. Without undertaking to review the many cases cited as to bills of peace, or *quia timet,*whether parties are in or out of possession, it must suffice that none goes so far as to uphold a bill against a tenant for life, in possession, to restrain him from making leases which might by possibility extend in terms longer than his natural life. It is obvious that if defendant is only tenant for life, no lease by her made could extend legally beyond her life. Hence theré is no occasion for the interposition of equity to restrain one from doing a legal impossibility. It may be that the purpose of this proceeding was to obtain a judicial decision as to the title in the plaintiff, if any, subsequent to the death of the defendant. Why should she, during her life-time, be made a party to controversies which can arise only between others after her death ? It may or may not be that the claim of the plaintiff is ill-grounded, and that she and the other children of William Christy aro entitled to said estate. The court cannot pass upon that question on the present demurrer.

Demurrer sustained.