alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Felder *v.*The State.

*Arson.*

(Decided January 13, 1914.

64 South. 162.)

1. *Criminal haw; Severance; Motion of State.*— A defendant has no inherent right to demand a joint trial, and there is no error in allowing a motion by the state for a severance, nor is this affected by section 7842, Code 1907, which does no more than authorize a separate trial on the demand of the defendant.

2. *Same; Discretion of Court.*— Where one severance has been allowed, any further motion for severance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.

Appeal from Lowndes Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. E. Gamble.

Hop Felder was convicted of arson, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

No counsel marked for appellant.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

A severance may be granted on motion of the state, as well as of the defendant, but when one severance has been granted any further motion is addressed to the discre*49tion of tlie *court.*— MalacM *v. State,*89 Ala. 134; *Wilkins v. The^State,*112 Ala. 55.

PELHAM, J. —

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of arson in the second degree rendered by the circuit court on August 27, 1913. The transcript contains no bill of exceptions, and the time for presenting and having a bill signed has expired.

The defendant was jointly indicted with Walter Jones, William Cowling, and Stephen Wagner. On July 29, 1912, the jointly indicted William Cowling demanded and was granted a severance. Subsequently, on August 26, 1913, the prosecution was abated as to Jones because of his death, and, on the motion of the state, a severance was granted as to this defendant and Stephen Wagner against the objection of the defendant. In this there was no error. There was no inherent right in the defendant to demand a joint trial with his co-defendant Wagner *(Wilkins v. State,*112 Ala. 55, 21 South. 56), and the manifest intent of the statute (Code, § 7842) is to give to a defendant jointly indicted with others the right, at his election, to be tried separately *(Woodley v. State,*103 Ala. 23, 15 South. 820). Besides, after one severance had been allowed, any further motion for severance was addressed to the discretion of the *court:*— Malachi *v. State,*89 Ala. 134, 8 South. 104.

There is no error shown by the record, and the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT F 

DETAILED EXPENSES OF BENNAZAR, GARCÍA & MILIÁN, C.S.P. 

June 2022

Amount 

 EXPENSES BGM 

 06/22/22 DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION (EXTERNAL SERVICES) 194.23 

 (SIR SPEEDY INVOICE #55762) 

 06/23/22 DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICES: MILAGROS ACEVEDO (TOA ALTA) 40.00 

 DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICES: MARCOS LÓPEZ (TOA ALTA) 40.00 

 DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICES: CARMEN NÚÑEZ (BAYAMÓN) 20.00 

 DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICES: JUAN ORTIZ (PONCE) 120.00 

 DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICES: ROSARIO PACHECO (SAN JUAN) 20.00 

 DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICES: LYDIA PELLOT (SAN JUAN) 20.00 

 DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICES: BLANCA PANIAGUA (CAROLINA) 20.00 

 06/24/22 TRANSLATIONS: RITA INVOICE #8786; MEETING OF JUNE 24, 2022 208.00 

SUBTOTAL: 682.23 

July 2022 

EXPENSES BGM

 07/29/22 DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION 20.70 

August 2022 

 NO EXPENSES BILLED 0.00 

September 2022 

NO EXPENSES BILLED 0.00 

Total [$702.93] 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22908-6 Filed:11/23/22 Entered:11/23/22 13:24:08 Desc:

Exhibit F Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.1

                       TANNING TECHNOLOGY EUROPE LIMITED

30 June 2000

Chris Mackenzie
British Sky Broadcasting Ltd.

Dear Chris

Re: Agreement Between British Sky Broadcasting Limited ("Sky") and Tanning
Technology Europe Limited for an Airtime Sales System dated July 1999 ("The
Agreement").

I set out below the substance of our agreement from our meeting in Edinburgh 28
June 2000:

1.   Both parties will consider the Agreement terminated with no liability
     arising on either side and both parties will waive any payments which each
     considers to be due to it from the other under the Agreement. This letter
     will be treated as full and final settlement of all claims arising from or
     in relation to the Agreement.

2.   Both parties will keep all matters relating to the Agreement, the parties'
     conduct in relation to the Agreement and this settlement strictly
     confidential. Notwithstanding the foregoing, both parties agree that Sky
     will not be in breach of this clause if it discloses the technical
     specifications relating to the Agreement to any third party instructed by
     Sky in relation to an airtime sales system. In addition, neither party will
     disparage the other in relation to the Agreement. This provision does not
     prohibit either party making any communication as is required by law or by
     financial reporting requirements.

3.   Both parties agree that all intellectual property rights in and to all
     material, including without limitation, software, documentary material,
     system architecture and codes) prepared in relation to the Agreement shall
     vest with Sky, provided that Tanning shall retain rights in Background IPR
     and enhancements as provided in the Agreement.

Please indicate your agreement by signing below.


Yours sincerely





Philip Purver

VP Europe




Agreed

British Sky Broadcasting Limited

By:  /s/ ___________________________

Title: ___________________________
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), announcement is made of the following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of February 2000.

*Name:*                         National Advisory Council on Migrant Health.                     

*Date and Time:*                         February 10, 2000; 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; February 11, 2000; 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.                     

*Place:*                         Washington Monarch Hotel, 2401 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037, Phone: (202) 429-2400; Fax: (202) 457-5010.                     

The meeting is open to the public. 

*Agenda:*                         The agenda includes an overview of general Council business activities and priorities. Topics of discussion will include the H-2 Guestworker Program, the Migrant research agenda, collaboration possibilities with other Migrant health advocates organizations, and the Year 2000 recommendations of the National Advisory Council. In addition, the Council will be reviewing nominations for Council membership for terms beginning in November 2000.                     

Anyone requiring information regarding the subject Council should contact Judy Rodgers, Migrant Health Program, staff support to the National Advisory Council on Migrant Health, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, 4350 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, Telephone (301) 594-4304. 

Agenda items are subject to change as priorities indicate.

Dated: January 10, 2000.

Jane M. Harrison, 

Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination. 

[FR Doc. 00-1032 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Group Wage Creditors in the Litigation Captioned 

Francisco Beltran Cintron et al. v. Puerto Rico 

Department of Family Affairs, (CASE No. 2021-05-

0345)

Claimants – Appellants

v.

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; THE 

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE 

GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PUERTO RICO; THE FINANCIAL 

OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD 

FOR PUERTO RICO, AS REPRESENTATIVE 

FOR THE PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS AND 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Appellees

 

 PROMESA

 Title III

 

Case No. 17-bk-03283

 

 

NOTICE OF APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Notice is hereby given that the Group Wage Creditors in the Litigation Captioned Francisco 

Beltran Cintron et al. v. Puerto Rico Department of Family Affairs, (CASE No. 2021-05-0345),

hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit the “Order Denying 

Motion Requesting Allowance and Payment of Administrative Expense Claims Filed by Wage 

Claimants” (See, Exhibit A) entered in the above-captioned case on November 3, 2022 at Docket 

No. 22799 denying the Application for Allowance of Payment Postpetition Administrative Claims 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23158 Filed:12/22/22 Entered:12/22/22 17:24:51 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

Pursuant to Section 503(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code Filed by Group Wage Creditors in the 

Litigation Captioned Francisco Beltran Cintron et al. v. the Family Department, ARV, and AIJ of 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Reservation of Rights (Docket Entry No. 21224 in Case 

No. 17-3283).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this date I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using 

the CM/ECF system which electronically mails notice to the attorneys of record. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 22nd of December 2022.

THE BATISTA LAW GROUP, PSC. 

S/ Jesus E. Batista Sánchez

Jesus E. Batista Sánchez, Esq.

Attorney for the Appellants

USDC-PR No. 227014

P.O. Box 191059

San Juan, PR. 00919

Telephone: (787) 620-2856

Facsimile: (787) 777-1589

E-mail: jeb@batistasanchez.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23158 Filed:12/22/22 Entered:12/22/22 17:24:51 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3587

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to give priority in the issuance 

of immigrant visas to the sons and daughters of Filipino World War 

II veterans who are or were naturalized citizens of the United States, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2003

Mr. CASE (for himself and Ms. BORDALLO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to give priority in the issuance of immigrant visas to the sons 

and daughters of Filipino World War II veterans who 

are or were naturalized citizens of the United States, 

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. PRIORITY FOR SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF FILI4 PINO WORLD WAR II VETERANS. 

5 Section 203(e)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

6 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following: 
2

•HR 3587 IH 

1 ‘‘Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in making visas 

2 available within any category established under such sub3 sections, priority shall be given to any otherwise eligible 

4 child, son, or daughter of a person who was naturalized 

5 pursuant to section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990 

6 (8 U.S.C. 1440 note).’’.

Æ
DATAGUARD RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.

March 11, 1996

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Dataguard Recovery Services, Inc. announced today that it was restating its
interim financial results for 1995 to adjust the Company's provision for French
income taxes related to its French disaster recovery subsidiary, Twinsys
Dataguard SA.  The effect of this restatement was to decrease net income for
the nine months ended September 30, 1995 by $ 416,900 ($.08 per share) to 
$ 106,770 ($.02 per share).

Dataguard is a Louisville, Kentucky based company which markets disaster
recovery services to users of large-scale computers throughout the United
States, Europe and Canada.  The Company's stock trades in the over-the-counter
market.



FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:

RICHARD W. SMITH
DEWEY D. MINTON, JR.
(502) 426-3434
Fax (502 426-2662
1

Filed 9/1/21 P. v. Cowan CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BILL GENE COWAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

C093063

(Super. Ct. No. 62168268)

Appointed counsel for defendant Bill Gene Cowan asked this court to review the 

record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more 

favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
2

I

In January 2019, defendant wrote a check to High Sierra Divers for $781.56, 

knowing he did not have sufficient funds to cover the check. He wrote a second check 

for $800 at the same location, again knowing he did not have the funds to cover the 

check; that check was not accepted.

The People subsequently charged defendant with two counts of writing checks 

with insufficient funds with the intent to defraud his victim and alleged he was previously 

convicted on three or more forgery charges. The People further alleged defendant was 

previously convicted of a strike offense and served a prior term in prison.

Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of writing checks with insufficient 

funds with the intent to defraud, admitted the prior strike allegation, and admitted being 

previously convicted of three forgery charges. Defendant and the People agreed 

defendant would serve a stipulated, aggregate term of four years in state prison. The 

remaining charges and allegations were dismissed, along with cases pending against 

defendant in Sacramento County Superior Court, with a Harvey waiver. (People v. 

Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.)

The trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of four years, awarded 

him 49 days of custody credits, and ordered him to pay various fines and fees. The trial 

court also ordered defendant to pay victim restitution directly to High Sierra Divers.

Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause.

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and 

asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable 

issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by 

counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the 

opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from 

defendant.
3

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /S/

MAURO, J.

We concur:

 /S/

ROBIE, Acting P. J.

 /S/

DUARTE, J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH BERNARD BAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-330) Submitted: October 20, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, 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. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Bernard Baylor pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2000). The district court sentenced him to 180 months in prison. Baylor’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. However, he raises the issues of whether the magistrate judge complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Baylor’s guilty plea, and whether the district court erred in sentencing Baylor as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Although notified of his right to do so, Baylor has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. After reviewing the transcript of the plea proceeding, we conclude that the magistrate judge fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in accepting Baylor’s guilty plea. Turning to the sentencing issue, we find that the district court’s determination that the challenged prior conviction resulted from a counseled plea was not clearly erroneous. SeeUnited States v. Daughtrey , 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989) (standard of review for factual determinations under the Sentencing Guidelines is clearly erroneous). Accordingly, the district court properly sentenced Baylor as an armed career criminal.3 In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Baylor’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 20, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130244 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130244 

 COA: 265346 

Oakland CC: 2003-192859-FH 

ANDREW JOSEPH CASCHERA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 4, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of sentence and REMAND this case 

to the Oakland Circuit Court for resentencing. Under People v Johnson, 474 Mich 96 

(2006), the trial court erred in its scoring of OV 11. Although the defendant entered a 

plea agreement pursuant to People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 (1993), to be sentenced at the 

bottom of the guidelines range, which was then believed to be 84 months, that was not 

the correct guidelines minimum in light of Johnson, supra. Because the defendant’s 

sentence was based on an inaccurate calculation of the guidelines range, he is entitled to 

be resentenced. Johnson, 474 Mich at 103. 

WEAVER and CORRIGAN, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

s1017 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 20, 2006 

Clerk
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6351** 

MACEO GARDNER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. FRANK PERRY, Secretary of N.C. Dept. of Public Safety , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Dever, III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:13

- hc

- 02272

- D )

Submitted : June 18 , 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Maceo Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent i n this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Maceo Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (2012)
. 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this s tandard 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 Gardner 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 arg ument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.3 DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 11
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 11 appear at 61 FR 18052, April 24, 1996.

§ 11.25 How does FAA issue rules? ( a ) The FAA uses APA rulemaking procedures to adopt, amend, or repeal regulations. To propose or adopt a new regulation, or to change a current regulation, FAA will issue one or more of the following documents. We publish these rulemaking documents in the Federal Register unless we name and personally serve a copy of a rule on every person subject to it. We also make all documents available to the public by posting them in the Federal Docket Management System at *http://www.regulations.gov .* ( 1 ) An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
( 2 ) A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
( 3 ) A supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
( 4 ) A final rule.
( 5 ) A final rule with request for comments.
( 6 ) A direct final rule.
( b ) Each of the rulemaking documents in paragraph (a) of this section generally contains the following information: ( 1 ) The topic involved in the rulemaking document.
( 2 ) FAA's legal authority for issuing the rulemaking document.
( 3 ) How interested persons may participate in the rulemaking proceeding (for example, by filing written comments or making oral presentations at a public meeting).
( 4 ) Whom to call if you have questions about the rulemaking document.
( 5 ) The date, time, and place of any public meetings FAA will hold to discuss the rulemaking document.
( 6 ) The docket number and regulation identifier number (RIN) for the rulemaking proceeding.
[Doc. No. 1999-6622, 65 FR 50863, Aug. 21, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 68474, Dec. 5, 2007]