alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39713

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

PHILLIP T. MADRID

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 638

Filed: September 17, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Six th Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Bannock County. Hon. David C. Nye , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years , for failure to register as a sex offender

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellat e Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appell ant.

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

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

Phillip T. Madrid pled guilty to fai lure to register as a sex offender . Idaho Code § 18

-
8309(1) . The district court sentenced Madrid to a unified term of four years, with a minimum

period of confinement of two years , suspended the sentence

, and placed Madrid on supervised

probation for four years. Madrid appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by

imposing an excessive senten ce.

The district court accepted an Idaho Criminal Rule 11 plea agreement, which called for

the sentence which Madrid received. Thus, Madrid requested the sentence which he received.

The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when his or her own2 conduct induces the commission of the error. Thomson v. Olsen , 147 Idaho 99, 106, 205 P.3d

1235, 1242 (2009). One may not complain of errors one has consented to or acquiesced in. Id

. In short, invited errors are not reversible. Id

. This doctrine applies to sentencing decisions as

well as rulings made during trial. State v. Leyva , 117 Idaho 462, 465, 788 P.2d 864, 867 (Ct.

App. 1990). Having requested the sentence he received thr ough a Rule 11 plea agreement,

Madrid cannot now challenge his sentence as an abuse of the court’s discretion.

Therefore, Madrid ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affir med.
|   |                                  |   |              |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|
| By:    | /s/ Mary B. Halsey               |   | February 15, 2011 |
|   | Mary B. Halsey                        |   | Date              |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |              |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |   |              |
|   |                                  |   |              |
|   |                                  |   |              |
|   |                                  |   |              |
|   |                                  |   |              |

----

|   |                                       |   |              |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|
| By:    | /s/ Robert Lee Whitehead                   |   | February 15, 2011 |
|   | R. Lee Whitehead                           |   | Date              |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |              |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer)              |   |              |
|   |                                       |   |              |
|   |                                       |   |              |
|   |                                       |   |              |
|   |                                       |   |              |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20624

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MOHAMMED TAIMOOR RAZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-473-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mohammed Taimoor Raza appeals the revocation of his supervised 

release. Raza had pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien in possession of a 

firearm and was sentenced to time served and three years of supervised 

release. One of the special conditions of supervision that Raza violated was 

that he would “provide travel information and follow through with exiting the 

United States under immigration officials’ supervision.” 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20624 Document: 00514033711 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2017
No. 16-20624

2

The appropriate guidelines range was 5 to 11 months in prison for the 

revocation. The district court found that Raza had made no attempt to contact 

his parents to secure the information necessary to secure travel documents and 

told the probation officer that he, Raza, had no intention of getting the 

documents necessary for his deportation. The court departed from the 

guidelines and sentenced Raza to two years in prison. 

On appeal Raza challenges the imposition of the above-guidelines 

sentence. We review a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release 

under the plainly unreasonable standard, applying a two-step process. United 

States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). First, we ensure that the 

district court did not commit significant procedural error, such as selecting a 

sentence based on clearly erroneous facts. Id. If there is no procedural error, 

we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. Raza 

argues that the sentence is based on the district court’s unfounded beliefs and 

assumptions. He has not shown that any of the factual findings supporting his 

sentence are clearly erroneous and has not shown a procedural error in his 

sentencing. See id. Nor has Raza shown that the district court abused its 

discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Heard, 

709 F.3d 413, 435 (5th Cir. 2013); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-20624 Document: 00514033711 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2017
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2928 

To provide relief to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for settlement of 

certain claims against the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 

Mr. KILDEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide relief to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for 

settlement of certain claims against the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT.—Notwith5 standing any other provision of law, subject to subsection 

6 (b), the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the 

7 Pottawatomi Nation in Canada $1,830,000 from amounts 

8 appropriated under section 1304 of title 31, United States 

9 Code. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2928 IH

1 (b) PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STIPULATION

2 FOR RECOMMENDATION OF SETTLEMENT.—The payment 

3 under subsection (a) shall— 

4 (1) be made in accordance with the terms and 

5 conditions of the Stipulation for Recommendation of 

6 Settlement dated May 22, 2000, entered into be7 tween the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada and the 

8 United States (referred to in this section as the 

9 ‘‘Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement’’); 

10 and 

11 (2) be included in the report of the Chief Judge 

12 of the United States Court of Federal Claims re13 garding Congressional Reference No. 94–1037X, 

14 submitted to the Senate on January 4, 2001, in ac15 cordance with sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, 

16 United States Code. 

17 (c) FULL SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.—The payment 

18 under subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of all 

19 claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada against the 

20 United States that are referred to or described in the Stip21 ulation for Recommendation of Settlement. 

22 (d) NONAPPLICABILITY.—Notwithstanding any other 

23 provision of law, the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2928 IH

1 or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) does not 

2 apply to the payment under subsection (a). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeremy E. Taylor, Appellant.

[859 NYS2d 854]

*1328Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W Latham, J), rendered May 3, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the sentence imposed for course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree to a determinate term of incarceration of 15 years and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [a]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based upon defense counsel’s representation of the victim’s father, a prosecution witness, in an unrelated matter. The record establishes that defense counsel first informed defendant of the potential conflict and that County Court thereafter conducted a *Gomberg*inquiry. Defendant agreed following that inquiry to defense counsel’s continuing representation, and it thus cannot be said that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on the potential conflict (see *People v Floyd,*45 AD3d 1457, 1459-1460 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 811 [2008]; *People v Walker,*2 AD3d 1358, 1359 [2003], *lv denied*3 NY3d 650 [2004]). We reject the further contention of defendant that defense counsel was otherwise ineffective in representing him (see *generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction (see *People v Hines,*97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], *rearg denied*97 NY2d 678 [2001]). Contrary to defendant’s further contentions, the court’s *Sandoval*ruling does not constitute an abuse of discretion (see *People v Tirado,*19 AD3d 712, 713 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 810 [2005]), and the court did not abuse its discretion in restricting the cross-examination of the victim with respect to prior complaints of sexual abuse inasmuch as “defendant provided no basis for his allegation that the prior complaints were false” *(People v Benn,*213 AD2d 489 [1995], *lv denied*85 *1329NY2d 969 [1995]; *see People v Sprague,*200 AD2d 867 [1994], *lv denied*83 NY2d 877 [1994]). Also contrary to the contention of defendant, the court properly refused to suppress his statement to the police (see *People v Collins,*43 AD3d 1338, 1339 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 1005 [2007]).

We agree with defendant, however, that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Thus, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]), we modify the judgment by reducing the sentence imposed for course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree to a determinate term of incarceration of 15 years. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4337-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 13, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely                           ( print page 46820)                        affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2017.                

Brevard, Orange, Pasco, and St. Lucie Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-21645 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-15-P
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

      ( print page 47264)    

# TIME AND DATE: 

Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 12, 2017.

# PLACE: 

Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

# STATUS: 

                        This meeting will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at                         *www.sec.gov.*

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

On September 12, 2017, the Commission issued notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10412), indicating that the meeting is open to the public (except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch), and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting.

The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a discussion regarding blockchain and other distributed ledger technology and implications for securities markets; an overview of law school clinic advocacy efforts on behalf of retail investors; a discussion regarding electronic delivery of information to retail investors (which may include a recommendation of the Investor as Purchaser Subcommittee); subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative work session during lunch.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: October 5, 2017.

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-21988 Filed 10-6-17; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit 31.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-15(e) OR 15d-15(e) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Matthew P. Dwyer, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Total Identity Corp.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and;
 
 5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 
 June 15, 2004
 
 By:/s/ Matthew P. DwyerChairman, Principal Executive Officerand Principal Accounting Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 25, 2022

No. 04-21-00586-CV

Hamzah ANJUM,

Appellant

v.

Zeenat SHAMS-UL-QAMAR,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-24053

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due April 22, 2022. On April 21, 2022, appellant filed a 

motion asking for a forty-five-day extension to file the brief. After consideration, we grant the 

motion and order appellant to file his brief by June 6, 2022. Counsel is advised no further 

extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, filed before the brief is due, (1) 

demonstrating extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advising the court of the 

efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) providing the court reasonable 

assurance the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court 

does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of April, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45914-45915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21014]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): October 2, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

[[Page 45915]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 26, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 364 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-210, CP2017-318.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-21014 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leroy Reynolds, Appellant.

[859 NYS2d 891]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Mullings, J.), imposed June 23, 2006, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Prudenti, PJ., Skelos, Florio, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.