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

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3779

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Adrian Davis, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2009

Filed: November 4, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Adrian Davis challenges the district court’s1

judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of conspiring to distribute

more than 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 846; distributing cocaine base on one occasion, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and distributing in excess of 5 grams of cocaine base

on three separate occasions, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii).

Davis’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
-2-

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and seeking permission to withdraw. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Davis was tried in June 2007 with codefendants Joseph Rainey and Marvin

Anthony. The evidence included the testimony of three other cooperating

codefendants who admitted their own participation and that of their cohorts in the

purchasing and selling of cocaine base over an extended period of time. The evidence

also included the testimony of a number of law enforcement officials who had

conducted surveillance, made controlled buys, and analyzed the substances that were

bought or seized. This evidence, along with the parties’ stipulations that various

quantities of cocaine base had been purchased or seized on various dates between

2004 and 2006, established that (1) there was a conspiracy or an agreement to

distribute cocaine base, (2) Davis knew of the agreement, and (3) he intentionally

joined the conspiracy. It also amply supported Davis’s convictions for distributing

cocaine base on the dates charges in the indictment. See United States v. Hernandez,

569 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements of conspiracy and distribution offenses);

United States v. Molsbarger, 551 F.3d 809, 812 (8th Cir.) (standard of review; verdict

will be upheld if there is any interpretation of evidence that could lead reasonableminded jury to find defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt), cert. denied, 129 S.

Ct. 2168 (2009). We therefore conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support

the jury’s verdict. 

Following our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), including Davis’s citation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(j), we have found

no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We

also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform Davis about

the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari, and we deny Davis’s

pro se motion for newly appointed counsel.

______________________________
#### Finis BLANKENSHIP, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 78-1334

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 2, 1979.

Finis Blankenship, pro se.

Edith L. James, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.

John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Douglas M. Becker, David M. Kendall, Joe B. Dibrell, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM.

A Texas state court convicted Finis Blankenship of being an accomplice to arm*271ed robbery. The state alleged that he had forced John Brooks and Charles Crawford to carry out the robbery. At the trial Brooks and Crawford testified against Blankenship. Blankenship’s conviction was affirmed, and he petitioned unsuccessfully for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. On appeal we remanded for an evidentiary hearing on one of Blankenship’s allegations. *Blankenship v. Estelle,*545 F.2d 570 (5 Cir. 1977). Specifically, Blankenship charged that Brooks and Crawford testified in return for the government’s agreeing to drop armed robbery charges against them. In their testimony at the trial Brooks and Crawford had both given the impression that the government had not made such an agreement with them.

On remand the district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that there was no such agreement. Blankenship now appeals, but the district court’s finding was supported by the great weight of the evidence and manifestly was not clearly erroneous. Blankenship also argues that for a number of reasons the district judge should have disqualified himself. This argument is without merit. Finally, Blankenship asserts that the district judge erred by failing to subpoena some of the witnesses Blankenship requested. The record shows that Blankenship withdrew his requests for some of these witnesses and that the others did in fact appear. The other issues raised in Blankenship’s briefs were not presented to the district court and we therefore decline to rule on them.

AFFIRMED.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3420 — GIMD/SOCPRESSE)

(2004/C 265/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 16 June 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
### §192b–2. Addition of lands

The following-described lands, comprising approximately one hundred and forty acres, are added to Rocky Mountain National Park and shall be subject to all laws and regulations applicable to said park:

### sixth principal meridian

Township 5 north, range 73 west, section 27, southwest quarter northwest quarter, and west half southwest quarter; section 34, west half northeast quarter northwest quarter.

(Aug. 24, 1949, ch. 501, §1, 63 Stat. 626.)
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32

                        WORLD MARKETING, INC. FORM 10-QSB
                       FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MAY 31, 2007
      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Jacob Roth, certify that

1.       I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of World
         Marketing, Inc.
2.       Attached to this certification is Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended May
         31, 2007, a periodic report (the "periodic report") filed by the issuer
         with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
         which contains condensed financial statements.
3.       I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
         pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
         o        The periodic report containing the condensed financial
                  statements fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
         o        The information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the consolidated financial condition and
                  results of operations of the issuer for the periods presented.


July 12, 2007                                   /s/ Jacob Roth
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Jacob Roth
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer

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

This certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section. This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 even if the document with which it is submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.
### §492. Earth, stone, and timber for Departments of the Army and Navy, and Government works in Alaska

On and after March 4, 1915 the Secretary of Agriculture, under regulations to be prescribed by him, is authorized to permit the Navy Department to take from the national forests such earth, stone, and timber for the use of the Navy as may be compatible with the administration of the national forests for the purposes for which they are established, and also in the same manner to permit the taking of earth, stone, and timber from the national forests for the construction of Government railways and other Government works in Alaska. He is authorized also to permit the Department of the Army to take earth, stone, and timber from the national forests for use in the construction of river and harbor and other works in charge of that department, subject to such regulations and restrictions as he may prescribe.

(Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 144, 38 Stat. 1100; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 467, §13, 43 Stat. 1197; May 29, 1928, ch. 901, §1(98), 45 Stat. 993; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The first sentence of this section is from act Mar. 4, 1915, and the last sentence is from act Mar. 3, 1925.

#### Amendments

1928—Act May 29, 1928, struck out provision which required the Secretary of Agriculture to submit with his annual estimates a report of the quantity and market value of earth, stone, and timber furnished.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Department of War designated Department of the Army and title of Secretary of War changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces" which in sections 3010 to 3013 continued military Department of the Army under administrative supervision of Secretary of the Army.
Editorial Note on Part 1337
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1337 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and 68 FR 10360, Mar. 5, 2003.

§ 1337.9 Effective date of naturalization. ( a ) An applicant for naturalization shall be deemed a citizen of the United States as of the date on which the applicant takes the prescribed oath of allegiance, administered either by the Service or an Immigration Judge in an administrative ceremony or in a ceremony conducted by an appropriate court under § 1337.8 of 8 CFR chapter I.
( b ) [Reserved]
[56 FR 50500, Oct. 7, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 37804, July 24, 1995; 66 FR 32147, June 13, 2001]
#### § 750.308 Reports.

Periodic reports on site acquisitions and actual sign removals shall be submitted on FHWA Form 1424 and as prescribed.[1]

[39 FR 27436, July 29, 1974, as amended at 41 FR 9321, Mar. 4, 1976]

###### Footnotes -
  750.308

[1] Forms are available at FHWA Division Offices located in each State.
#### Tom RANDALL; Mark Archibald; Mohanad Atassi; Craig Bailey; Charles Benedict; Glen Billman; Shawn Chako; Wuihan Cheah; Ching-Cheng Chen; Jennifer Cheney; Jeff Childers; Carey Cooley; Philip Dinets; Charles Elking; Doug Farmen; Justin Fer*302nandez; Laura Figahs; Barry Fitzgerald; Rio Garcia; Janel Garvin; Sukhu George; T. Giridharan; Robert Godau; John Gray; Peter Grenyo; David Hamilton; Nolen Harter; Larry Hatch; Simon He; Ray Hendrickson; Nalin Jain; Dylan Jones; Darryl Larson; Bin Liu; James Loe; Robert Long; Don Lozir; John Lundy; Joel McCarter; Keith Medici; Chris Mellon; Alison Mizraji; Leon Modorsky; Ruby Mosher; Ahmad Naghsh-Nilchi; Andy Nguyen; Steve Paolucci; Todd Parks; Greg Pauletti; Dennis Payne; Helen Pugmire; Jerry Robinson; Patrick Roling; Avery Rose; Steve Ruzzier; Afshin Sadeghi; Anthony Sanborn; Brent Smith; Allen Sproul; Clem Stein; St. Pierre; Mark Szen; Ronald Taylor; Fikaejs Trading; Luan Tran; Jim Wallace; Christopher Wendell; Slade Winchester; Svetlana Yarmitsky; Ronald Yong; Shenhong Zhu, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. RATIONAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION and Paul D. Levy; Cowen & Company Inc; Paul D. Levy; Robert T. Bond; Wessels, national securities brokerage firm; Cowen, national securities brokerage firm; Dain Rauscher Wessels, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 00-17515. D.C. No. CV-97-21001-JF.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 13, 2002.

Decided March 13, 2002.

Before BRUNETTI, LEAYY, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Tom Randall and other investors who purchased stock in Rational Software Corporation (Rational) appeal the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of their insider trading class action brought under §§ 10(b) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j, *et. seq.*We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and, after de novo review, we affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing Randall’s second amended complaint for failure to plead facts sufficient to meet the two-part test for tippee liability set forth in *Dirks v. SEC,*463 U.S. 646, 103 S.Ct. 3255, 77 L.Ed.2d 911 (1983). Randall’s complaint alleged that Paul Levy, Rational’s CEO, “tipped” material negative nonpublic information to Dain Rauscher Wessels (Wessels), a professional market analyst. Wessels then passed this information to its clients, who sold Rational stock.

Randall’s complaint did not allege facts which showed any special relationship between Levy and Wessels. The complaint also did not allege facts showing that Levy received a personal benefit from tipping Wessels or that Wessels knew or should have known that Levy’s disclosure was in breach of his fiduciary duty. Thus, the district court properly dismissed Randall’s second amended complaint with prejudice.

AFFIRMED

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.2


                                                JOHN F. DUGGAN, ESQUIRE
                                                DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
                                                DIRECT DIAL:  (717) 796-6143


VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

                                                October 21, 1999
Rayburn W. Green
Ball & Mourton, Ltd., PLLC
E.J. Ball Plaza
112 W. Center, Suite 700
Fayetteville, Arkansas  72702

      Re:   Acquisition of Balanced Care Corporation's Missouri Assets or Lease
            Rights and Operations - Asset Purchase Agreement - First Amendment

Dear Ray:

      As we discussed today, the purpose of this letter is to memorialize in
writing our understanding of the following amendment to the Asset Purchase
Agreement (the "Agreement"):

      Balanced Care Corporation, for itself and for each of its Subsidiaries
("Seller") and Christian Health Care of Missouri, Inc. ("Buyer") hereby agree
that the last sentence of Section 7.7 is changed to read as follows: "The
Parties agree to finalize the form and content of the Lease Guaranty Fee
Agreement on terms mutually acceptable to both Parties within 28 days after the
date of execution of this Agreement."

      If this amendment meets with your approval, please have the Seller
acknowledge below and return this letter amendment to my attention. If you have
any questions, please let me know. Thank you for your consideration.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                                /s/ John F. Duggan

                                                John F. Duggan

Acknowledged, Agreed to and Accepted:

SELLER:                                         PURCHASER:
BALANCED CARE CORPORATION,                      CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE OF
for itself and for each of the Subsidiaries     MISSOURI, INC.


By:/s/Brad E. Hollinger                         By: /s/Allen Kilgore
Name: Brad E. Hollinger                         Name: Allen Kilgore
Title: Chairman & CEO                           Title: President
<PAGE>   2
Rayburn W. Green, Esquire
October 21, 1999
Page 2




cc:   Brad E. Hollinger
      Clint T. Fegan
      Robin L. Barber, Esquire
      Lorie A. Taylor
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAMES F. ROTH,

 Appellant,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-12-00132-CV

Appeal from the

17th District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 017-253241-11)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and his sureties, if any, see TEX. R. APP. P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs both in this Court and the court below for which let execution issue. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Washington, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 805]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered August 25, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the *1194second degree (§ 265.03 [2]). Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence the sworn statement of a witness who refused to testify at trial. The People established by clear and convincing evidence at the *Sirois*hearing *(see Matter of Holtzman v Hellenbrand, 92 AD2d*405 [1983]) that misconduct by defendant or others acting at his behest caused that witness to be unavailable to testify at defendant’s trial *(see People v Chandler,*30 AD3d 161 [2006]; *see generally People v Geraci,*85 NY2d 359 [1995]). The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from introducing reputation testimony and collateral evidence purportedly bearing on the credibility of that witness *(see generally People v Bosier,*6 NY3d 523, 528 [2006]; *Chandler,*30 AD3d at 162). The court also properly refused to permit defendant to introduce into evidence the hearsay testimony of a police detective regarding descriptions of the shooter provided by two witnesses who did not testify *(see generally People v Huertas,*75 NY2d 487, 492 [1990]). Further, assuming that those descriptions constituted *Brady*material, we conclude that defendant had a meaningful opportunity to use that material and was thus not denied a fair trial by the timing of its delivery *(see People v Cortijo,*70 NY2d 868, 870 [1987]; *People v Concepcion,*262 AD2d 1058 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 821 [1999]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The court properly rejected defendant’s *Batson*challenge to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge with respect to an African-American prospective juror. “ ‘The court was in the best position to observe the demeanor of the prospective juror[ ] and the prosecutor,’ and its determination that the prosecutor’s explanation was race-neutral and not pretextual is entitled to great deference” *(People v Lawrence,*23 AD3d 1039, 1039 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 835 [2006], quoting *People v Williams,*13 AD3d 1214, 1215 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 857 [2005]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 74566 / March 23, 2015

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-14641

____________________________________

:

In the Matter of :

:

CHARLES L. RIZZO and : ORDER DIRECTING 

GINA M. HORNBOGEN, : DISBURSEMENT OF

: FAIR FUND

Respondents. :

____________________________________:

On September 30, 2013, pursuant to Rule 1103 of the Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and 

Disgorgement Plans, 17 C.F.R. § 201.1103, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Plan of 

Distribution and Opportunity for Comment (Exchange Act Rel. No. 70573 (Sept. 30, 2013)). The 

Notice provided all interested parties thirty (30) days to submit a comment on the Proposed Plan of 

Distribution (“Proposed Plan”). The Notice advised interested parties that they could obtain a copy 

of the Proposed Plan from the Commission’s public website or by submitting a written request to 

Nancy Chase Burton, Esq., United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, 

NE, Washington, DC 20549-5631. All persons who desired to comment on the Proposed Plan 

could submit their comments, in writing, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the 

Notice. Two comments were submitted. On June 18, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of 

Amended Proposed Plan of Distribution and Opportunity for Comment and the Amended Plan of 

Distribution (“Amended Plan”) was simultaneously posted on the Commission’s website. The 
2

Amended Plan responded to the comments received and included two additional eligible Fair 

Fund recipients (Exchange Act Rel. No. 72429 (June 18, 2014)). No additional comments were 

submitted. On July 24, 2014, the Commission issued an Order Approving Amended Plan of 

Distribution (Exchange Act Rel. No. 72667 (July 24, 2014)). 

The Amended Plan provides for the distribution of the Fair Fund through the U.S. 

Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service when the Fund Administrator submits a payment file 

with payee information in a Commission-approved format. The Fund Administrator has 

submitted a payment file with payee information for the disbursement of $189,042.04.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Commission staff shall direct the payment of 

$189,042.04 from the Fair Fund as provided for in the Amended Plan.

Additionally, it is ORDERED that the Secretary of the Commission is authorized, upon 

receipt of a payment file from the Fund Administrator, to issue an order directing disbursement if 

additional funds are received, for an amount not to exceed the remainder of Gina M. 

Hornbogen’s payments, in a second tranche from the Fair Fund for distribution to Eligible 

Clients.

By the Commission.

Brent J. Fields

Secretary