alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 34,125 4 TITO A. RODRIGUEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 7 Raymond L. Romero, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 Debra Lautenschlager, Assistant Public Defender 15 Carlsbad, NM 16 for Appellant 17
MEMORANDUM OPINION 182 WECHSLER, Judge. 1
{1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss 2 the charge of commercial burglary. Defendant entered a conditiona l plea reserving for 3 appeal the issues raised in his motion to dismiss. [RP 111-21, 132] On the basis of this 4 Court’s opinion in State v. Archuleta , ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 32,794, 5 Oct. 27, 2014), cert. granted , 2015-NMCERT-___ (No. 6 35,005, Jan. 26, 2015), we issued a notice of proposed summary 7 disposition, proposing to reverse. The St ate has responded with an objection to our 8 notice and a request to hold this appeal in abeyance or provide the State with a 9 reasonable opportunity to seek guidance fro m the New Mexico Supreme Court on all 10 pending appeals controlled by our opinion in Archuleta . [MIO 1-2] We have provided 11 the State with such an opportunity, and the Supreme Court has denied the State a stay 12 or other remedy that would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta . Thus, 13 pursuant to Rule 12-405(C) NMRA, we apply Archuleta. See Rule 12-405(C) (“A 14 petition for a writ of certiorari filed pursu ant to Rule 12-502 NMRA or a Supreme 15 Court order granting the petition does not a ffect the precedential value of an opinion 16 of the Court of Appeals, unless othe rwise ordered by the Supreme Court.”). 17
{2} In its response to our notice, the State simply objects to our proposed 18 disposition without elaboration. [MIO 1] Wecontinue to believe that there are no 193 material factual distinctions to remove this case from the control of our opinion in 1 Archuleta . For the reasons stated in our notice, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for 2 commercial burglary. 3
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

_______________ _________________ 5 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 6
WE CONCUR: 7

________________________________ 8 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 9 10

________________________________ 11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 12
### §473. Persons required to furnish information; request; failure to furnish; false information

It shall be the duty of every owner, president, treasurer, secretary, director, or other officer or agent of any cotton warehouse, cotton ginnery, cotton mill, or other place or establishment where cotton is stored, whether conducted as a corporation, firm, limited partnership, or individual, and of any owner or holder of any cotton and of the agents and representatives of any such owner or holder, when requested by the Secretary of Agriculture or by any special agent or other employee of the Department of Agriculture acting under the instructions of said Secretary to furnish completely and correctly, to the best of his knowledge, all of the information concerning the grades and staple length of cotton on hand, and when requested to permit such agent or employee of the Department of Agriculture to examine and classify samples of all such cotton on hand. The request of the Secretary of Agriculture for such information may be made in writing or by a visiting representative, and if made in writing shall be forwarded by registered mail, or by certified mail and the registry receipt or receipt for certified mail of the United States Postal Service shall be accepted as evidence of such demand. Any owner, president, treasurer, secretary, director, or other officer or agent of any cotton warehouse, cotton ginnery, cotton mill, or other place or establishment where cotton is stored, or any owner or holder of any cotton or the agent or representative of any such owner or holder, who, under the conditions hereinbefore stated, shall refuse or willfully neglect to furnish any information herein provided for or shall willfully give answers that are false or shall refuse to allow agents or employees of the Department of Agriculture to examine or classify any cotton in store in any such establishment, or in the hands of any owner or holder or of the agent or representative of any such owner or holder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $300 or more than $1,000.

(Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 337, §3, 44 Stat. 1373; Pub. L. 86–507, §1(3), June 11, 1960, 74 Stat. 200; Pub. L. 91–375, §§4(a), 6(o), Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 773, 783.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1960—Pub. L. 86–507 inserted "or by certified mail" after "registered mail", and "or receipt for certified mail" after "registry receipt."

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

#### Change of Name

"United States Postal Service" substituted in text for "Post Office Department" pursuant to Pub. L. 91–375, §§4(a), 6(o), Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 773, 783, which are set out as notes preceding section 101 of Title 39, Postal Service, and under section 201 of Title 39, respectively, which abolished Post Office Department, transferred its functions to United States Postal Service, and provided that references in other laws to Post Office Department shall be considered a reference to United States Postal Service.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Robert Clevon Jeffery , Appellant

No. 06

- 22

- 00125

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Delta County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 7816 ). Memorandum Opin ion delivered by Justice

van Cleef

, Chief Justice Stevens and Justice

Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the a ppellant, Robert Clevon Jeffery , has adequately indicated his inability

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 25, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
SCOTT E. STEVENS
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus EDWARD TYRONE PIPKIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:05-cr-001129-TLW) Submitted: November 14, 2007 Decided: December 13, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald R. Hall, West Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* Pipkin erroneously states that the judgment was entered on March 8, 2007, the date of his sentencing hearing. The Government erroneously states that the judgment was entered on March 22, 2007, the date on which the judgment was signed. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Edward Tyrone Pipkin seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. Pipkin has filed two motions in this court for an extension of the appeal period. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. In criminal cases, the defendant must file a notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket on March 23, 2007. * Pipkin filed a letter in the district courtindicating his intent to appeal dated May 3, 2007, after the tenday period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. The letter, however, was not postmarked until May 8, 2007, after the thirty-day excusable neglect period expired. We construe Pipkin’s letter as a notice of appeal. SeeSmith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992). Because the notice of appeal may have been filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to- 3 - the district court for the court to determine whether the notice should be deemed to have been filed within the excusable neglect period, which expired on May 7, 2007. Fed. R. App. P. 4 (b), (c)(1). Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). If the district court determines that Pipkin’s notice was filed within the excusable neglect period, the court shall determine whether Pipkin has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. Pipkin’s motions in this court for an extension of the appeal period are denied, as only the district court has jurisdiction to extend the appeal period. We defer action on the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
Order entered July 31, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01495-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DORIS L. TIPPS

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-13-3072-3

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s July 29, 2015 fourth motion for extension of time to file 

combined reply brief and ORDER the brief tendered to the Clerk of the Court July 27, 2015 

filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
#### 1.000 Scope of part.

This part sets forth basic policies and general information about the Federal Acquisition Regulations System including purpose, authority, applicability, issuance, arrangement, numbering, dissemination, implementation, supplementation, maintenance, administration, and deviation. Subparts 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 prescribe administrative procedures for maintaining the FAR System.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 587 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit substantiation 

requirements for charitable contributions to returns submitted by the donor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2017 

Mr. ROBERTS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit substantiation requirements for charitable contributions to 

returns submitted by the donor. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Charitable 

5 Contributions Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF SUBSTANTIATION REQUIRE7 MENTS FOR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (8) of section 

9 170(f)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amendVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S587.IS S587

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 587 IS

1 ed by striking subparagraph (D) and by redesignating 

2 subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (D). 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to contributions made in taxable 

5 years beginning after December 31, 2016. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 776.88 Report to licensing authorities.

Upon determination by the JAG that a violation of subpart B of this part or the Code of Judicial Conduct has occurred, the JAG may cause the Rules Counsel to report that fact to the Federal, State, or local bar or other licensing authority of the covered attorney concerned. If so reported, notice to the covered attorney shall be provided by the Rules Counsel. This decision in no way diminishes a covered attorney's responsibility to report adverse professional disciplinary action as required by the attorney's Federal, State, and local bar or other licensing authority.
#### Charles Luftig, Respondent, v. Abe Steinhorn, Doing Business as Grand Mountain Hotel, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law. and the complaint dismissed, with costs to appellant. Defendant operates a Summer resort hotel which included among the recreational facilities a baseball diamond or field for use of the guests. July 5, 1957 plaintiff, playing left field in a game of baseball, while attempting to catch a fly ball tripped, stumbled and fell, suffering a fracture of the left heel. There was evidence that a collision occurred between plaintiff and a fellow player. However, plaintiff asserts that the collision occurred as he was falling after having stepped in a hole on the field. Looking solely at the evidence as presented by the plaintiff we conclude that there is no right of recovery. Two of the witnesses for the plaintiff testified in substance that there were holes all over the field and plainly visible. One witness referred to the field as a pastoral “full of holes.” The other witness testified to " foxholes ” in the very bad field. According to their testimony the danger from holes was open and obvious. If that testimony be accepted the plaintiff, by electing to play ball upon such a field, assumed the evident risks and should not be allowed to recover. *(Murphy*v. *Steeplechase Amusement Co.,*250 N. Y. 479; *McGee*v. *Board of Educ.,*16 A D 2d 99, 101; *Lobsenz*v. *Rubinstein,*258 App. Div. 164, affd. 283 N. Y. 600; *Scala*v. *City of New York,*200 Misc. 475.) If the condition were so open and notorious plaintiff would also have been guilty of contributory negligence in failing to exercise reasonable care for his own safety. He testified while running in he had his eyes only on the ball. Plaintiff testified that he did not see any holes on the field except the one into which he fell. If his account be accepted the field was not in a bad or dangerous condition. The defendant was not an insurer of the plaintiff’s safety. His only obligation was to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for its anticipated use, while plaintiff had an obligation to use reasonable care for his own safety. *(Robinson*v. *C. & J. Piskosh, Inc.,*259 App. Div. 544; *Conroy*v. *Saratoga Springs Auth.,*259 App. Div. 365; *Venia*v. *Bartel,*11 Misc 2d 501.) Solely on the evidence produced by the plaintiff he has not proved the defendant negligent or shown that he was entitled to recover. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
### §7202. Marital status

(a) The President may prescribe rules which shall prohibit, as nearly as conditions of good administration warrant, discrimination because of marital status in an Executive agency or in the competitive service.

(b) Regulations prescribed under any provision of this title, or under any other provision of law, granting benefits to employees, shall provide the same benefits for a married female employee and her spouse and children as are provided for a married male employee and his spouse and children.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any provision of law providing a benefit to a male Federal employee or to his spouse or family shall be deemed to provide the same benefit to a female Federal employee or to her spouse or family.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 523, §7152; Pub. L. 92–187, §3, Dec. 15, 1971, 85 Stat. 644; renumbered §7202, Pub. L. 95–454, title VII, §703(a)(1), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1216.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 633(2)6 (less 1st sentence). | July 26, 1937, ch. 522, 50 Stat. 533. |

Statutes at Large

The authority of the President to prescribe rules is added on authority of former section 633(1), which is carried into section 3302. The section is rewritten as a general prohibition instead of specifying each of the personnel actions to which the prohibition applies. The words "in an Executive agency or in the competitive service" are added for clarity. The sentence "All Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are repealed." is omitted as unnecessary.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–454, renumbered section 7152 of this title as this section.

1971—Pub. L. 92–187 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
  WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

_______________________

FORM 8-K_______________________

CURRENT REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE 
  SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): July 6, 2006

|MS Structured Asset Corp.                                       
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)              
|                                                                
|Delaware                                                        
|                                                                
|(State or Other Jurisdiction                                    
|of Incorporation)                                               
|                                                                
|1585 Broadway, Second Floor                                     
|New York, New York                                              
|Attention: Madhu Philips                                        
|                                                                
|(Address of Principal Executive Offices)                        
|                                                                
|Registrants telephone number, including area code: 212-761-2520
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)   

---





|Section 9 |           | Financial Statements and Exhibits
|--------- | --------- | ---------------------------------
|          |           |                                  
|          | Item 9.01 | Financial Statements and Exhibits
|          |           |                                  
|          |           | Exhibit 15                       



---





SIGNATURES


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereto duly authorized.

|Date: July 10, 2006
|-------------------

| | MS STRUCTURED ASSET CORP.
| | -------------------------
| | (Registrant)             
| |                          
| | By:                      
| | Name:                    
| | Title:                   



| |  | 
| |  | 





---



EXHIBIT INDEX




|Exhibit 15 | Letter of Deloitte & Touche LLP
|---------- | -------------------------------









| |  | 
| |  |
#### Tersilla Ceria v. Aldo Ceria et al., as Executors of Romolo Ceria, Deceased, et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 26559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11201]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9020-8]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 04/27/2015 Through 05/01/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20150123, Draft EIS, NPS, ID, City of Rocks National Reserve 
Draft General Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 06/22/2015 Contact: 
Wallace Keck 208-824-5911.
EIS No. 20150124, Final Supplement, FAA, UT, Cal Black Memorial 
Airport, Review Period Ends: 06/08/2015, Contact: Janell Barrilleaux 
425-227-2611.
EIS No. 20150125, Final Supplement, NNSA, DOE, Surplus Plutonium 
Disposition, Review Period Ends: Once a Preferred Alternative is 
identified, DOE will announce its preference in a Federal Register 
notice. DOE would publish a record of decision no sooner than 30 days 
after its announcement of a Preferred Alternative. Contact: Sachiko 
McAlhany 877-344-0513.

     Dated: May 5, 2015.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-11201 Filed 5-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### § 26.625 Criminal drug statute.

*Criminal drug statute* means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TAIZHOU UNITED IMP. & EXP. CO. LTD.,

Plaintiff

GUANGZHOU JANGHO CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM 

ENGINEERING CO., LTD., SHANGHAI JANGHO 

CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM ENGINEERING CO., 

LTD., BEIJING JANGHO CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM 

ENGINEERING CO., LTD., BEIJING 

JIANGHEYUAN HOLDING CO., LTD., JANGHO 

GROUP CO., LTD., JANGHO CURTAIN WALL 

HONG KONG LTD.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FAIR 

TRADE COMMITTEE,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2022-2000

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 1:16-cv-00009-LMG, 1:16-cv-00012-LMG, 

Senior Judge Leo M. Gordon.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

Case: 22-2000 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 07/11/2023
JAMES KEVIN HORGAN, DeKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, 

Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also 

represented by GREGORY S. MENEGAZ, ALEXANDRA H.

SALZMAN. 

 DOUGLAS GLENN EDELSCHICK, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee 

United States. Also represented by REGINALD THOMAS 

BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; 

JESUS NIEVES SAENZ, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade 

Enforcement & Compliance, United States Department of 

Commerce, Washington, DC. 

 DERICK HOLT, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Aluminum Extrusions Fair 

Trade Committee. Also represented by ROBERT E.

DEFRANCESCO, III, ELIZABETH S. LEE, ALAN H. PRICE, JOHN 

ALLEN RIGGINS, ENBAR TOLEDANO. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and 

CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

July 11, 2023 

Date

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-2000 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 07/11/2023