alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 1 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 2 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 3 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 4 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 5 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 6 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 7 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 8 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 9 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 10 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 11 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 12 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 13 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 14 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 15 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 16 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 17 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 18 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 19 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 20 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 21 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 22 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 23 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 24 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 25 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 26 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 27 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 28 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 29 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 30 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 31 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 32 of 33

Case 3:08-cv-00221-EMC   Document 191   Filed 08/25/10   Page 33 of 33

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T22:59:05-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED

March 12, 2020

v No. 345742

Bay Circuit Court

JAMES EDWARD JONES, LC No. 18

- 010043

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: C AMERON

, P .J., and S HAPIRO and L ETICA , JJ.

S HAPIRO

, J. ( concurring ).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carlos Stevenson, Appellant.

Motion granted to extent that for argument of appeal enlarged to include March 1961 Term on condition that appellant’s brief is filed and served on or before March 6, 1961. Respondent directed to file by March 16, 1961.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). t k/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L AU R I E MAR I E L AS KE Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. R C N C O R P O R A T IO N , a D el aw ar e c orpor a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 17557 D. C . No . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 3 3 3 - WHA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i a m H . A l s up, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L auri e M ar i e L as key app ea l s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary j udgm e nton s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons gr ounds i n he rdi ve r s i tyof c i t i z e ns hi p a c t i on 

# FI LED DE C 08 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSt k / Res ea r ch 08- 17557 2 a g a in s t R C N C o rp o r a tio n . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . H

erna ndezv. Sp acelab s Med. , Inc. , 34 3 F . 3d 11 07 , 11 12 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entbecause L as key f ai l ed t o con trovertR C N ’ s e vi dence thather c l ai m s w er e barre d b y the appl i cabl e s t atut es o f lim ita tio n s . See C a l . C i v. P r oc . C ode § 335. 1 ( pr ovi di ng atw o- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons f

orpe r s ona l i nj urya nd pr oduc tl i abi l i tyc l a i m s ) ; C a l C i v. P r oc . C ode § 3 3 8 ( b ) ( p r o v id in g ath r e e - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s f

o rin ju ryto p r o p e rty ) ; C a l. C iv . C o d e § 1 7 0 8 .7 ( p r o v id in g ath r e e - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s f

o rs ta lk in g ) ; C a l. C i v. C od e § 17 98 . 96 (provi di ng a f ou r- ye arst atut e of l i m i t at i on s f or i dent i ty theft ). W e d o n o t c o n s id e rL a s k e y ’s a r g u m e n ts r a is e df o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. Se e B i as v . Moy ni han , 50 8 F . 3d 12 12 , 12 23 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). L a s k e y ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . L a s k e y ’s m o tio n to f

ile as u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f is g r a n te d . AF F I RME D.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6474** 

RECO A. HILL , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2:11

- cv - 02978

- DCN )

Submitted : July 31, 2013 Decided: August 6, 2013

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Reco A. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Reco A. Hill s eeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner sati sfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 ( 2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 1203.735-102 Definitions. ( a ) *Agency* means the United States International Development Cooperation Agency (IDCA).
( b ) *Employee* means an officer or employee at home or abroad, of an agency named in paragraph (a) of this section, but does not include a special Government employee or a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or Public Health Service.
( c ) *Executive order* means Executive Order 11222 of May 8, 1965, as amended.
( d ) *Person* means an individual, a corporation, a company, an association, a firm, a partnership, a society, a joint stock company, or any other organization or institution.
( e ) *Special Government employee* means an officer or employee of an agency who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform, with or without compensation, for not to exceed 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days, temporary duties either on a full-time or intermittent basis.
( f ) *Member of an employee's family* means a spouse, minor child, or other member of an employee's immediate household. For the purpose of these regulations *member of an employee's immediate or in-law household* means those blood relations who are residents of the employee's household.
( g ) *Counselor* means the agency's Counselor on Ethical Conduct and Conflicts of Interest.
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2004-19331; Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-60] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Harvard, NE.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

0901 UTC, January 20, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63059). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on January 20, 2005. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

      ( print page 72112)    
Issued in Kansas City, MO on November 30, 2004.

Anthony D. Roetzel,

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.

[FR Doc. 04-27224  Filed 12-10-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Second District.

#### Charles E. Smith, appellee, v. Frank C. Bellrose, appellant.

Gen. No. 6,873.

Assumpsit upon a lease. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal- from the Circuit Court of LaSalle county; the Hon. Joe A. Davis, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 25, 1922.

L. O. Browne and H. M. Kelly, for appellant; Charles E. Woodward, of counsel. L. W. Brewer and Butters & Clark, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 124.11 Congressional certification pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act. ( a ) The Arms Export Control Act requires that a certification be provided to the Congress prior to the granting of any approval of a manufacturing license agreement or technical assistance agreement for the manufacturing abroad of any item of significant military equipment that is entered into with any country regardless of dollar value. Additionally, any manufacturing license agreement or technical assistance agreement providing for the export of major defense equipment shall also require a certification when meeting the requirements of § 123.15 of this subchapter.
( b ) Unless an emergency exists which requires the immediate approval of the agreement in the national security interests of the United States, approval may not be granted until at least 15 calendar days have elapsed after receipt by the Congress of the certification required by 22 U.S.C. 2776(d)(1) involving the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, any member country of that Organization, or Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, or the Republic of Korea or at least 30 calendar days have elapsed for any other country. Approvals may not be granted when the Congress has enacted a joint resolution prohibiting the export.
( c ) Persons who intend to export defense articles and defense services pursuant to any exemption in this subchapter under the circumstances described in this section and section 123.15 must provide written notification to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and include a signed contract and a DSP-83 signed by the applicant, the foreign consignee and the end-user.
[70 FR 34654, June 15, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 38343, Aug. 3, 2009; 77 FR 16599, Mar. 21, 2012; 87 FR 16424, Mar. 23, 2022]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Cox, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered June 20, 1977, convicting him, under consolidated indictments, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminal facilitation in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established. The prosecution’s sole witness who testified to the alleged criminal events was an undercover police officer. His testimony as to the first sale of marihuana was controverted in certain essential details by two defense witnesses. Thus, the issue of credibility was paramount. Therefore, when the prosecutor was permitted, over objection, to cross-examine the two defense witnesses about their failure, before trial, to convey to law enforcement officials their belief in the defendant’s innocence, the prosecution gained an advantage to which it was not entitled (cf. *People v Hamlin,*58 AD2d 631). The witnesses had no obligation to contact the police; to imply several times that because they had not, their version of the events was not credible, denied defendant a fair trial. We agree with defendant that an indirect consequence of the improper cross-examination of the defense witnesses as to the first sale was an enhancement of the undercover officer’s testimony about the events concerning the second sale. Latham, J. P., Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur; O’Connor, J., concurs in the result solely upon the constraint of the holding in *People v Hamlin*(58 AD2d 631).
#### Marian Myser, by Max Myser, appellee, v. Central Illinois Public Service Company, appellant.

Action by an infant by her next friend for injuries received when an ornament on a building to which defendant had fastened a guy wire fell and struck her. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Douglas county; the Hon. George A. Sentel, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1922.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed October 25, 1922.

Vause & Kiger, for appellant. Perry M. Moore, John H. Chadwick and Perry M. Chadwick, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 1421.6 Executive Director.

*Executive Director* means the Executive Director of the Authority.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60407

VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DIANA DAY-CARTEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

No. 3:06-CV-650

Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This dispute centers on whether defendant Diana Day-Cartee must indemnify plaintiff Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. (“Verizon”), for withholdUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 26, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-60407 Document: 00511122961 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
No. 09-60407

2

ing-tax liability arising from a transfer of stock options. Day-Cartee appeals a

summary judgment directing her to pay more than $2.5 million to Verizon.

The issue of tax liability is pending in the United States Tax Court. This

case should not proceed until the tax issue has been determined. Accordingly,

we vacate the summary judgment and remand to the district court (in which the

magistrate judge is sitting by consent). We instruct the district court to stay the

case awaiting a decision by the Tax Court. We note that the district court will

have jurisdiction once the Tax Court has ruled on the merits of the tax dispute.

The judgment is VACATED and REMANDED. We express no view on the

ultimate merits of the case or on what rulings the district court should make on

remand.

Case: 09-60407 Document: 00511122961 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2010
CAUSE NO. 12-15-00139-CR

CAUSE NO. 12-15-00140-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RONNY LEE WILLIAMS

, } APPEALED FROM 145TH DISTRICT COURT

APPELLANT

V. } IN AND FOR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, } NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE



### ORDER

Came on for consideration the Appellant’s Pro Se Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in

the above-referenced causes, and it appearing that Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders brief herein

and that Appellant has been unable to examine the record so that he can file a pro se brief, it is hereby

ORDERED that the trial court ensure that Appellant has the opportunity to fully examine the appellate

record on or before January 22, 2016

, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court notify this

Court in writing as to the date or dates upon which the appellate record was made available to Appellant

and the amount of time for which Appellant had access to the record on each date. Appellant shall have

thirty (30) days from the day the appellate record was first made available to him to file his pro se brief

with this Court.

WITNESS THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN

, Chief Justice, Twelfth Court of

Appeals District, Tyler, Texas.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE at Tyler, Texas, this 23rd day of

December 2015

, A.D.

Respectfully yours,

PAM ESTES

, CLERK

By:

_______________________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk
§ 1422.8 Notice of hearing; contents; attachments; procedures. ( a ) The Regional Director may cause a notice of hearing to be issued involving any matters related to the petition.
( b ) The notice of hearing shall be served on all interested parties and shall include: ( 1 ) The name of the Department, petitioner, and intervenors, if any;
( 2 ) A statement of the time and place of the hearing, which shall be not less than twenty (20) days after service of the notice of hearing, except in extraordinary circumstances;
( 3 ) A statement of the nature of the hearing; and
( 4 ) A statement of the authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held.
( c ) A copy of the petition shall be attached to the notice of hearing.
( d ) Hearings on matters related to the petition pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be conducted by a Hearing Officer in accordance with §§ 1422.9 through 1422.15.
1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONJA M. CLEMENTS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-08-2598-JSW

ORDER CHANGING TRIAL DATE AND 

PRE-CONFERENCE DATE

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

It is hereby ordered that the following deadlines be extended as follows:

Pre-Trial: June 28, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Trial: July 14, 2010

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________________________

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

Case3:08-cv-02598-JSW Document45-1 Filed03/22/10 Page1 of 1

August 2, 1010 at 8:00 a.m. March 25, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-02598-JSW Document 46 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 1