alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42360.

#### O’NEAL v. THE STATE.

Hall, Judge.

The defendant appeals from her conviction and sentence of 12 months for assault and battery, enumerating as error the trial court’s admitting in evidence testimony as to oral confessions or admissions of the defendant, on the ground that they were not shown to be voluntarily made.

1. The trial court, over objection of the defendant’s counsel, admitted testimony as to a confession or admission made by *101the defendant to a police officer during in-custody interrogation. The evidence does not sustain the defendant’s contention that the State failed to show that before making this statement the defendant was warned, in accordance with the United States Constitution, Amendment V (Miranda v. Arizona, 384. U. S. 436 (86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694)), that she had a right to remain silent; that any statement she made could and would be used in court against her; that she had a right to consult with a lawyer and have the lawyer with her during the interrogation; and that if she was indigent a lawyer would be appointed to represent her. The officer to whom the defendant made this statement testified that he told the defendant that she didn’t have to tell him anything or to answer any questions and that she had a right to a lawyer before she answered any questions, and that anything she might say could be used in court against her. The officer did not testify specifically that he informed the defendant that if she was indigent a lawyer would be appointed to represent her. The record shows no evidence or indication of indigency. On the contrary, it shows that the defendant was represented at the trial and on this appeal by employed counsel. The officer’s failure to inform the defendant of the right to appointed counsel if she was indigent, therefore, was harmless. *Blake v. State,*109 Ga. App. 636 (137 SE2d 49), cert. denied 379 U. S. 924; *Moore v. State,*113 Ga. App. 738 (149 SE2d 492), cert. denied by the U. S. Supreme Court, Jan. 30, 1967; *Taylor v. City of Griffin,*113 Ga. App. 589 (149 SE2d 177), cert. denied by the U. S. Supreme Court, Jan. 16, 1967; *Nichols v. Heffner,*222 Ga. 706 (152 SE2d 393); *Dill v. State,*222 Ga. 793 (152 SE2d 741).

*Deen and Quillian, JJ., concur.*

Submitted October 3, 1966

Decided January 10, 1967

Rehearing denied January 26, 1967.

2. The trial court did not err in allowing in evidence testimony as to an admission by the defendant made to another police officer during in-custody investigation, to which testimony the defendant did not object at the trial. *Eberhardt v. State,*47 Ga. 598, 609; *Alford v. State,*137 Ga. 458, 459 (73 SE 375); *Hill v. State,*214 Ga. 794, 795 (107 SE2d 662); *Taylor v. State,*220 Ga. 801, 802 (142 SE2d 239).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*102
      *Ray, Owens, Keil & Hirsch, J. Walter Owens, Joseph A. Ray,*for appellant.

*W. B. Skipworth, Solicitor General, Frank K. Martin,*for appellee.
*

### This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 6/25/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

CALVIN BOLDING, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. DENNIS LEONARD, Pastor; PASTOR DAVE, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-1421 (D.C. No. 95-S-1483) (Dist. Colo.)



## ORDER AND JUDGMENT *


### Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument.1

### The district court granted in forma pauperis status to Mr. Bolding

for appeal purposes. -2- Mr. Calvin Bolding filed this pro se action under 4 2 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants, both ministers with Heritage Chris tian Center, violated his First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed Mr. Bolding’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). Mr. Bolding appe als, 1 and we affirm. Section 1983 requires the plaintiff to “show that t he defendant deprived him of [a] constitutional right ‘under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.’ This . . . element requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant acted ‘under colo r of law.’” Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. , 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970); see also Pino v. Higgs , 75 F.3d 1461, 1464 (10th Cir. 1996). Mr. Bolding stated in his complaint that neither de fendant acted under color of state law. Mr. Bolding also stated in his compl aint that he did not wish to assert jurisdiction under a statute other than sect ion 1983. On appeal, Mr. Bolding again admits that neither defendant is a st ate actor. Because Mr. Bolding failed to meet this specific requirement of section1983, we agree with the district court that his complaint must be dismissed.

### -3-

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. The mandate sh all issue forthwith. SUBMITTED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
§ 323.5 Appraiser independence. ( a ) *Staff appraisers.* If an appraisal is prepared by a staff appraiser, that appraiser must be independent of the lending, investment, and collection functions and not involved, except as an appraiser, in the federally related transaction, and have no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the property. If the only qualified persons available to perform an appraisal are involved in the lending, investment, or collection functions of the regulated institution, the regulated institution shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the appraisers exercise independent judgment and that the appraisal is adequate. Such steps include, but are not limited to, prohibiting an individual from performing appraisals in connection with federally related transactions in which the appraiser is otherwise involved and prohibiting directors and officers from participating in any vote or approval involving assets on which they performed an appraisal.
( b ) *Fee appraisers.* ( 1 ) If an appraisal is prepared by a fee appraiser, the appraiser shall be engaged directly by the regulated institution or its agent, and have no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the property or the transaction.
( 2 ) A regulated institution also may accept an appraisal that was prepared by an appraiser engaged directly by another financial services institution, if: ( i ) The appraiser has no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the property or the transaction; and
( ii ) The regulated institution determines that the appraisal conforms to the requirements of this subpart and is otherwise acceptable.
[55 FR 33888, Aug. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 29502, June 7, 1994; 80 FR 32684, June 9, 2015]
§ 238.86 Exemptions. ( a ) *Employees.* An employee of a savings and loan holding company is exempt from the prohibition in § 238.83, if all of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The employee's responsibilities and activities are limited solely to agriculture, forestry, retail merchandising, manufacturing, or public utilities operations.
( 2 ) The savings and loan holding company maintains a list of all policymaking positions and reviews this list annually.
( 3 ) The employee's position does not appear on the savings and loan holding company's list of policymaking positions, and the employee does not, in fact, exercise any policymaking function with the savings and loan holding company.
( 4 ) The employee: ( i ) Is not an institution-affiliated party of the savings and loan holding company other than by virtue of the employment described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( ii ) Does not own or control, directly or indirectly, the savings and loan holding company; and
( iii ) Does not participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the savings and loan holding company.
( b ) *Temporary exemption.* ( 1 ) Any prohibited person who was an institution affiliated party with respect to a savings and loan holding company, who owned or controlled, directly or indirectly a savings and loan holding company, or who otherwise participated directly or indirectly in the conduct of the affairs of a savings and loan holding company on October 13, 2006, may continue to hold the position with the savings and loan holding company.
( 2 ) This exemption expires on December 31, 2012, unless the savings and loan holding company or the person files an application seeking a case-by-case exemption for the person under § 238.87 by that date. If the savings and loan holding company or the person files such an application, the temporary exemption expires on: ( i ) The date of issuance of a Board approval of the application under § 238.89(a);
( ii ) The expiration of the 20-day period for filing a request for hearing under § 238.90(a) provided there is no timely request for hearing following the issuance by the Board of a denial of the application under that section;
( iii ) The date that the Board denies a timely request for hearing under § 238.90(b) following the issuance of a Board denial of the application under § 238.89(b);
( iv ) The date that the Board issues a decision under § 238.90(d); or
( v ) The date an applicant withdraws the application.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JAE HO CHUNG, a.k.a. Jae Chung, a.k.a.

Jay Chung, a.k.a. Steve Chung,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 50186

D.C. No. 2:14

- cr

- 00262

- JAK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8

, 2017 **

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Jae Ho Chung appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his

guilty

- plea conviction s and 63

- month concurrent sentence s for conspiracy to

commit bank fraud and bank fraud , in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1 344, 1349

.

Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Chung ’s counsel has filed a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 11 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 50186

brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw

as counsel of record. We have provided Chung the opportunity to file a pro s e

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

Chung waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an

appeal based on a claim that his plea s were inv oluntary. He also waived the right

to appeal most aspects of his sentence

. Our independent review of the record

pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds

for relief as to Chung ’s plea or any aspects of the sentence that fall outside the

scope of the waiver. W e therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the

remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v.

Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
✓ ", 

# ~ 

# Virg 

# iniaTech ® 

# I Institute for 

### Critical Technology and 

### Applied Science ICTAS (MC 0193) Kelly Hafl, Suite 410 Vrginia Tech 325 Stanger Street, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 540/231-2597 Fax: 540/231-0970
www. ictas. vt.edu

February 11, 2015
Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Dear Sir or Madam, Virginia Tech and the Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership (MAAP) are pleased to provide this letter in support of Hazon Solutions Exemption request under Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in order to conduct flight operations for the purposes of aerial imaging and videography, precision agriculture and aerial mapping, crisis response support, and infrastructure inspection. The MAAP has been continually impressed by their proficiency and professionalism. We have conducted a series of flight operations under our Chester certificate of authorization and waiver (2014-ESA-160-COA) working with Hazon and they have demonstrated first rate airmanship, a deeply ingrained safety culture and risk management system and a remarkable attention to detail. 

### This company is doing things the right way and the MAAP has absolute confidence in their ability to execute this mission set safely. We strongly endorse the expeditious approval of this waiver.



### Jon Gre ne Associ 

### ~ te Director (Virginia) Mid,,A 

### ~ lantic Aviation Partnership

Invent the Future

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE A N D S T A T E UNIVERSITY An equal opportunity, affirmative actlon institution
§ 241.2 Definitions. Except as defined below, terms used in this part have the same meaning given them in 12 CFR 225.2. ( a ) *Securities holding company.* ( 1 ) A securities holding company means— ( i ) Any company that directly or indirectly owns or controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, one or more brokers or dealers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and
( ii ) Is required by a foreign regulator or provision of foreign law to be subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision.
( 2 ) A securities holding company does not include a company that is— ( i ) A nonbank financial company supervised by the Board pursuant to title I of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 *et seq.*);
( ii ) An insured bank (other than an institution described in subparagraphs (D), (F), or (H) of section 2(c)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2))) or a savings association;
( iii ) An affiliate of an insured bank (other than an institution described in subparagraphs (D), (F), or (H) of section 2(c)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2))) or an affiliate of a savings association;
( iv ) A foreign bank, foreign company, or company that is described in section 8(a) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106(a));
( v ) A foreign bank that controls, directly or indirectly, a corporation chartered under section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 611 *et seq.*); or
( vi ) Currently subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision by a foreign regulator.
( b ) *Supervised securities holding company* means a securities holding company that is supervised by the Board pursuant to this part.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32414

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Gil E. MARTIN

Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 25 May 2017

________________________

Military Judge: Matthew P. Stoffel.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge and reduction to E-3. Sentence adjudged 2 June 2016 by SpCM convened at Edwards Air Force 

Base, California. 

For Appellant: Major Johnathan D. Legg, USAF.

Before MAYBERRY, HARDING, and C. BROWN, Appellate Military 

Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no 

error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). 
United States v. Martin, No. ACM S32414

2

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

KURT J. BRUBAKER

Clerk of the Court
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-8967-6]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice; request for public comment.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement concerning Doughty's Treating Plant Site, LaSalle Parish, Louisiana.

The settlement requires the Town of Jena, settling party to pay a total of $18,500, plus interest as payment of response costs to the Hazardous Substances Superfund.

For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

# DATES:

Comments must be submitted on or before November 9, 2009.

# ADDRESSES:

The proposed settlement and additional background information relating to the settlement are available for public inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Kenneth Talton, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214) 665-7475. Comments should reference the Doughty's Treating Plant Site, Jena, LaSalle Parish, Louisiana, and EPA Docket Number 06-03-09, and should be addressed to Kenneth Talton at the address listed above.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Salinas, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-8063.

Dated: September 29, 2009.

Lawrence E. Starfield,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. E9-24465 Filed 10-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2831 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2831

   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Newlands 
   Project Headquarters and Maintenance Yard Facility to the Truckee-
                      Carson Irrigation District.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2003

 Mr. Gibbons introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Newlands 
   Project Headquarters and Maintenance Yard Facility to the Truckee-
                      Carson Irrigation District.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the ``Newlands Project Headquarters and 
Maintenance Yard Facility Transfer Act''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF NEWLANDS PROJECT HEADQUARTERS AND MAINTENANCE 
              YARD FACILITY.

    (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the 
Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, Nevada, pursuant to the terms of 
the memorandum of agreement between the District and the Secretary 
(Contract No. 3-LC-20-8052), all right, title, and interest of the 
United States in and to real property within the Newlands Project, 
Nevada, known as 2666 Harrigan Road, Fallon, Nevada, and identified for 
disposition on the map entitled ``Newlands Project Headquarters and 
Maintenance Yard Facility''.
    (b) Report.--If the Secretary has not completed such conveyance 
within 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
shall submit a report to the Congress explaining the reasons the 
conveyance has not been completed and stating the date by which the 
conveyance will be completed.
    (c) Environmental Review, Remediation, and Removal.--The Secretary 
may not make any conveyance under this section until the completion 
with respect to the conveyance, in accordance with the memorandum of 
agreement referred to in subsection (a), of--
            (1) compliance with requirements relating to the National 
        Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. et seq. 4321 et 
        seq.) and cultural resources; and
            (2) necessary environmental site assessments, remediation, 
        or removal.
    (d) Liability.--The United States shall not be liable for damages 
of any kind arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence by the 
Truckee-Carson Irrigation District or its employees, agents, or 
contractors relating to the facilities conveyed under this section and 
occurring prior to, on, or after the date of such conveyance.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

The Board ofDirectors and Shareholders of Copart Inc.

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8No. 33-81238) pertaining to the Copart 1992 Stock Option Plan, 1994Director Option Plan, and 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (Form S-8No. 33-97636) pertaining to the Copart 1992 Stock Option Plan, (Form S-8No. 333-93887) pertaining to the Copart 1992 Stock Option Plan andthe 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-90612)pertaining to the Copart 2001 Stock Option Plan, and (Form S-8 No. 333-112597)pertaining to the Copart 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our reports datedSeptember 25, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsof Copart, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of Copart, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended July 31, 2007.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Sacramento,CaliforniaSeptember 25, 2007

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 5, 2019 s0225

Order 

Clerk

March 5, 2019

158214

STRATEGY AND EXECUTION, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant- Appellee,

v SC: 158214

COA: 337105

Oakland CC: 2015-146756-CK

LXR BIOTECH, LLC,

Defendant/Counterplaintiff- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 28, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.