alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(January 15, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Andriani, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Doyle, Appellant.

— Judgments of conviction, rendered May 12, 1978, Supreme Court, New York County, are affirmed. We have heretofore held this appeal in abeyance and remitted the matter "for the reopening and continuance of the pretrial hearing on the subject of identification of [these] defendants-appellants * * * by the witness Febee, to make new findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a new determination” *(People v Andriani,*67 AD2d 20, 26). The reopened hearing has been held, including, by stipulation, all previous relevant trial testimony. The Trial Justice, by order of September 8, 1979, has denied the reopened motion to suppress Febee’s identification of defendants-appellants, and we sustain his findings and conclusions for the reasons set forth in his order and decision. So much for the points raised as to unreliability of Febee as an identification witness as to both defendants. As to other specific points in the supplemental briefs in behalf of appellants, we rule separately as to each. Both appellants attack the use of a curtain at the lineup, as described in our earlier writing at page 23. (67 AD2d 20, 23, *supra.)*We hold this particular concealment of identity of a lineup witness not to have violated appellants’ rights since such a concealed witness, though unknown at the time of the viewing, may be— indeed, now has been — questioned both at a hearing and at trial. (See *United States v Tolliver,*569 F2d 724, 728.) The method used has been characterized as "not a mode to be followed” *(People v Andriani,*67 AD2d 20, 23, *supra),*and is fraught with possibilities of irreparable error, but it did no harm in this case. And the defendants’ right to counsel was not violated since counsel did actually, save for identity of the witness, have the opportunity otherwise to observe. And the photographic array shown to Febee was not impermissibly suggestive. We do not consider that Doyle’s photo was taken while he was illegally detained. All other points raised have been covered in our prior rulings, to which we adhere. Concur— Silverman, J. P., Fein and Markewich, JJ.

Sandler, J.,

dissents in a memorandum as to *People v Doyle*as follows: I *865would reverse Doyle’s conviction and dismiss the indictment as to him for the reasons I previously set forth in *People v Andriaai*(67 AD2d 20, 26).
#### § 29.3077 Wet (W).

Any sound tobacco containing excessive moisture to the extent that it is in an unsafe or doubtful-keeping order. Wet applies to any tobacco which is not damaged but which is likely to damage if treated in the customary manner. (See Rule 22.)

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982, 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 40407, Nov. 7, 1986]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Davidson Growth Plus, L.P. 1997 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000795757         
<NAME> DAVIDSON GROWTH PLUS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000     
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997   
<CASH>                                           1,080
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      404
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          23,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,160   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,889   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         11,987     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0     
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,878    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,889    
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,232    
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,033    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,064    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       155     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.29<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 10.2**

 

**AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 1, 2003**

The undersigned hereby agree that the employment agreement by and between the Stonewood Insurance Management Company, Inc. and C. Kenneth Mitchell, dated as of October 1, 2003 (the “Employment Agreement”) is amended as provided herein, effective October 1, 2006

The first sentence of Section 2 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:  “Executive shall be paid, as a “Base Salary,” not less than Three Hundred Thirty-Four Thousand Two Hundred and Eight ($334,208) per year, payable in periodic installments in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll practices.”

Except as expressly provided above, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Acknowledged and Agreed:

 

| /s/ C. Kenneth Mitchell    |   | Stonewood Insurance Management Co., Inc. |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
| C. Kenneth Mitchell        |   |                                     |
|                       |   | By:  /s/ Michael T. Oakes                |
| Dated:  September 11, 2006 |   | Dated:  September 11, 2006               |
#### § 29.3603 Rule 2.

The determination of a grade shall be based upon a thorough examination of a lot of tobacco or of an official sample of the lot.
Order entered October 6, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00276

- CR

STEVEN JAMES MORRIS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 072064

O RDER

Before the Court is appellant ’ s October 4, 2021 second motion to extend

time to file appella nt ’ s brief. We GRANT appellant ’ s motion and ORDER

appellant ’ s b rief filed on or b efore October 25, 2021 . If appellant ’ s brief is not

filed by that dat e, this appeal may be abated for the trial court to make findings in

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8( b)(2).

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of National Bank Limited, Respondent, v Security Management Company, Ltd., Appellant.

[816 NYS2d 414]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), entered January 23, 2006, granting petitioner’s application to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent was not an intended beneficiary of the agreement to which it was not a party, and thus was not entitled to invoke its arbitration clause. The best evidence of an intent to benefit a third party is the language of the agreement itself *(243-249 Holding Co. v Infante,*4 AD3d 184, 185 [2004]), and nothing therein other than the solitary mention of respondent’s commission, which was separately provided for in another agree*409ment that did not contain an arbitration clause, even suggests, let alone demonstrates, that the agreement was intended for its benefit. *Choctaw Generation Ltd. Partnership v American Home Assur. Co.*(271 F3d 403 [2d Cir 2001]) and *Matter of Groval Knitted Fabrics (Alcott)*(72 Misc 2d 513 [1971], *affd*39 AD2d 524 [1972], *affd*31 NY2d 796 [1972]), upon which respondent relies, are distinguishable on their facts, since the rights of the nonparties seeking arbitration in those cases were dependent on the terms of the agreements containing the arbitration clauses; we note in this regard that the inquiry is “fact-specific” *(see JLM Indus., Inc. v Stolt-Nielsen SA,*387 F3d 163, 178 [2d Cir 2004]).

We have considered respondent’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
§ 3201.68 Erosion control materials. ( a ) *Definition.* Woven or non-woven fiber materials manufactured for use on construction, demolition, or other sites to prevent wind or water erosion of loose earth surfaces, which may be combined with seed and/or fertilizer to promote growth.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 77 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 23, 2012, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased erosion control materials. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased erosion control materials.
[76 FR 43817, July 22, 2011]
§ 2903.12 Application review. ( a ) Reviewers will include government and non-government individuals. All reviewers will be selected based upon training and experience in relevant scientific, extension, or education fields, taking into account the following factors: ( 1 ) The level of relevant formal scientific, technical education, or extension experience of the individual, as well as the extent to which an individual is engaged in relevant research, education, or extension activities; and
( 2 ) The need to include as reviewers experts from various areas of specialization within relevant scientific, education, or extension fields.
( b ) In addition, when selecting non-government reviewers, the following factors will be considered: ( 1 ) The need to include as reviewers other experts (e.g., producers, range or forest managers/operators, and consumers) who can assess relevance of the applications to targeted audiences and to program needs;
( 2 ) The need to include as reviewers experts from a variety of organizational types (e.g., colleges, universities, industry, state and Federal agencies, private profit and non-profit organizations) and geographic locations;
( 3 ) The need to maintain a balanced composition of reviewers with regard to minority and female representation and an equitable age distribution; and
( 4 ) The need to include reviewers who can judge the effective usefulness to producers and the general public of each application.
( c ) Authorized departmental officers will compile application reviews and recommend awards to OEPNU. OEPNU will make final award decisions.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:92-cr-01005-MP

PATRICK LEE FRANK,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

On Tuesday, June 20, 2006, a hearing was held in this court regarding a recent letter

received from Warden Robert McFadden on the status of Patrick Lee Frank. During the hearing,

the court heard testimony from Dwayne Walker and Dr. Carlos Tomelleri, two individuals who

were on Mr. Frank’s Risk Assessment Review Panel. After hearing the testimony, it appears that

Mr. Frank’s “conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or

psychological care or treatment would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to

another person or serious damage to property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 4243(f)(2). However,

while Mr. Frank has met the criteria for conditional release, a suitable facility in which to place

Mr. Frank continues to elude the court. Accordingly, Mr. Franks appointed counsel, Thomas

Miller, along with United States Probation Office, will continue to search for suitable placement

facilities for the court to consider. Once a suitable accommodation is found, the court will rehear

this issue.

Pending this discovery, in Mr. Frank’s best interest, the court hereby orders the United

States Marshal’s Office to return Mr. Frank to the United States Medical Center in Springfield,

Missouri, so that he may continue to receive proper treatment.

Case 1:92-cr-01005-MP Document 114 Filed 06/23/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:92-cr-01005-MP

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:92-cr-01005-MP Document 114 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:89-cr-01018-MP

CARL EUGENE GRIFFIN,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1281, in which Mr. Griffin seeks to have the

Court reconsider the order at Doc. 1280, which denied his first motion to reconsider the order

denying Mr. Griffin a reduction in sentence based on the amendments to the guidelines dealing

with crack cocaine offenses.

Nothing in the motion at Doc. 1281 supports departing from the Court's previous ruling. 

Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion for reduction of sentence, Doc. 1281, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:89-cr-01018-MP-GRJ Document 1290 Filed 06/03/09 Page 1 of 1
United States District Court

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Date: February 23, 2023

Products Liability Litigation Case No.: 3:19md2885

This Document Relates to All Cases Judge M. Casey Rodgers

 Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon

 

DOCKET ENTRY: Data Day

BrownGreer PLC presents its analyses of the DOEHRS data. 

 

PRESENT:

Honorable M. Casey Rodgers 

 United States District Judge

Julie Newton

MDL Paralegal

Barbara Rogers

Deputy Clerk

Donna Boland

Court Reporter

APPEARANCES: 

BrownGreer PLC: Orran L. Brown, Sr., and Dennis Carter

PROCEEDINGS:

8:02 am Court in Session 

Presentation of DOEHRS data

9:35 am Court in Recess

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3680 Filed 02/23/23 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2287

JULIAN HARMAN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(6:13-cv-01728-TMC)

Submitted: July 30, 2015 Decided: August 13, 2015

Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. Daniel Mayes, SMITH, MASSEY, BRODIE, GUYNN, & MAYES, P.A., 

Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Hugh Dun Rappaport, 

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts; 

Marshall Prince, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Julian Harman appeals the district court’s order adopting 

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and entering judgment 

for the Commissioner in this action challenging the denial of 

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Harman v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:13-cv-01728-TMC 

(D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7556

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:91-cr-00070; 2:97-cv-00524-RAJ) Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: December 4, 2006 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Douglas Alan Jarvis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and a subsequent margin order denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jarvis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Jarvis’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in- 3 - the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 239 

To require zero-based budgeting for departments and agencies of the 

Government. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2013 

Mr. ROSS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Budget 

A BILL 

To require zero-based budgeting for departments and 

agencies of the Government. 

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 ‘‘Zero-based Budgeting 

5 Ensures Responsible Oversight (ZERO) Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ZERO-BASED BUDGETING. 

7 Section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following new sub9 section: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 239 IH

1 ‘‘(i)(1) The President shall submit with materials re2 lated to each budget transmitted under subsection (a) on 

3 or after January 1, 2015, a budget for each department 

4 and agency which contains the following information: 

5 ‘‘(A) A description of each activity for which 

6 the department or agency receives an appropriation 

7 in the current fiscal year or for which the depart8 ment or agency requests an appropriation for the 

9 budget year. 

10 ‘‘(B) The legal basis for each activity. 

11 ‘‘(C) For each activity, three alternative fund12 ing levels for the budget year, and a summary of the 

13 priorities that would be accomplished within each 

14 level, and the additional increments of value that 

15 would be added by the higher funding levels. At least 

16 two of these funding levels shall be below the fund17 ing level for the current fiscal year. 

18 ‘‘(D) For each activity, one or more measures 

19 of its cost efficiency and effectiveness. 

20 ‘‘(2) As soon as practicable, the Director of the Office 

21 of Management and Budget shall publish guidelines to 

22 carry out this subsection. The guidelines shall require that 

23 the baseline budget of each department or agency is asVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:33 Jan 15, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H239.IH H239

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•HR 239 IH

1 sumed to be zero and each proposed expenditure shall be 

2 justified as if it were a new expenditure.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with
www.anchorreporters.com

(850)432-2511

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT 

IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________________________________________

 RAYME EDLER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. CASE NO.: 2019-CA-001206

 DIVISION: F 

 

 MELISSA PINO, 

 

 Defendant. 

______________________________________________________/

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 DATE TAKEN: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 

 TIME: 1:00 p.m. - 5:45 p.m. 

 PLACE: M.C. Blanchard Judicial Center 

 190 Governmental Center 

 Pensacola, Florida 32502 

 BEFORE: Jeff Burns, Circuit Judge 

This cause came on to be heard at the time and place of 

aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were 

reported by: 

Kimberly A. Rodgers, Florida Professional Reporter 

Notary Public, State of Florida 

Anchor Court Reporting

229 South Baylen Street 

Pensacola, Florida 32502 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 36-1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 3
 92

www.anchorreporters.com

(850)432-2511

that?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Dr. Edler, as far as being a public

figure, do you consider yourself a public figure?

A. No.

Q. What power and influence, if any, do you have

over any affairs of the government?

A. I don't have any.

Q. Do you consider yourself to be a highly

visible person?

MR. TALBOTT: Objection, Your Honor, as to

what she considers herself. The issue is not

whether she considers.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (By Mr. Indest) Dr. Edler, are you a

representative of the government?

A. No.

Q. Do you have power over citizens?

A. No.

Q. Do you -- are you allowed broad discretion in

the exercise of your powers and your authority?

A. No.

Q. Do you have substantial responsibilities or

control over the conduct of government affairs in

Escambia County?

 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

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 36-1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 3
 93

www.anchorreporters.com

(850)432-2511

A. No.

Q. Did you ever take an oath of office to be an

officer?

A. No.

Q. Do you make any public policy?

A. No.

Q. What are you as far as full-time or part-time?

A. As of when Ms. Gilley came on board, I'm now

considered full-time.

Q. But when these postings were made, were you

part-time?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have control of hiring and firing

anyone in your department?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any control over even disciplining

anyone in your department?

A. No.

Q. Have you been told that you have no

administrative or managerial authority at all?

A. Yes, I have been told that.

MR. INDEST: Your Honor, we're finished with

our direct of Dr. Edler subject to redirect if

necessary. I don't know if a break would be

appropriate at this time or if Dr. Edler needs a

 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

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 36-1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 3