alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Carrington, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 47]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered January 7, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

However, because the defendant was denied his right to a public trial, a new trial is ordered *(see,*US Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4). The testimony of the undercover officer at the hearing held pursuant to *People v Hinton*(31 NY2d 71, *cert denied*410 US 911) was insufficient to satisfy the criteria of *People v Martinez*(82 NY2d 436). Further, the closure was broader than necessary, as the court failed to indicate a basis for excluding the defendant’s father during the undercover officer’s testimony *(see, People v Kin Kan,*78 NY2d 54; *People v Gutierez,*86 NY2d 817; *People v Davis,*210 AD2d 345). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3634

___________

Laurence Robert Otto, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: January 31, 2000

 Filed: February 3, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Laurence R. Otto, who was convicted of possessing an unregistered sawed-off

rifle in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), see United States v. Otto, 64 F.3d 367, 369-71

(8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1133 (1996), appeals the district court’s1

 order

denying his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Having reviewed the record, we

conclude the district court correctly denied Otto’s motion because he did not request

and obtain this court’s authorization prior to filing it. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255,
-2-

2244(b)(2), (3). We nevertheless observe that Eighth Circuit precedent precludes Otto

from being successful on his claim that his section 5861(d) conviction was

unconstitutional under United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). See United States

v. Hall, 171 F.3d 1133, 1142 (8th Cir. 1999) (Congress had authority under taxing

clause to enact § 5861(d) and criminalize possession of unregistered firearm).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CurrencyShares® Singapore Dollar Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended October 31, 2010, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arruda, Chief Financial Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Trust.

Date: March 10, 2011



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JOSEPH ARRUDA                                    
|Joseph Arruda*                                       
|Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Joseph Arruda is signing in his capacity as the principal financial officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the
Registrant.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit
32.1
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 OF
AMEN PROPERTIES, INC.
 PURSUANT TO 18 USC
§1350
 
 
 In
connection with the annual report of AMEN Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jon Morgan, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title
18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of
my knowledge:
 
 (1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
  and
  (2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
  
 
 
 /s/ Jon
Morgan
 Jon Morgan, Chief Executive
Officer
 
 
 Date:           August
14, 2008
From: catlovers@centurytel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:48:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

In addition to the moral arguments below, you will want to remember that there is no such thing as a

free lunch. When these services are mandated, people who disagree with these treatment choices will

have to pay for them for others. Also, since we now have the free goods problem (no meaningful direct

cost to the individual) there will also be an increase in the use of these services, driving up the cost of

healthcare.

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Nick Bartol

, 81147-7640
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Stephanie Fernandez a/k/a Stephanie

Barfield

,

Appellant

,

v.

T he State of Texas

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00079

- C R

Appeal from the

210 th District Court

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 201 70D03993 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to file the

b rief until Ju ly 10, 201 9

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO F ILE

THE STATE ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. J aime E. Esparza

, the State ’ s attorney, prepare the

State ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before Ju ly 10

, 201 9

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29 th day of May

, 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
From: elainegeens76@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:42:14 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Elaine Geens

, 14744-8771
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 441 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 24, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on House Administration: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 420 

Condemning the recent murders of three Christian workers in Turkey and 

expressing support for the efforts of the Government of Turkey to investigate and prosecute those individuals responsible for the murders under 

charges of terrorism. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2007 

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. PENCE, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. FORTUN ̃O, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. SALI, Mr. FRANKS of 

Arizona, Mr. AKIN, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. MCHENRY, and Mr. SHIMKUS) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the recent murders of three Christian workers 

in Turkey and expressing support for the efforts of the 

Government of Turkey to investigate and prosecute those 

individuals responsible for the murders under charges 

of terrorism. 

Whereas three employees of Zirve, a Christian publishing 

house, were brutally murdered on April 18, 2007, in Turkey; 

Whereas media reports state that the three victims had their 

hands and feet bound together and their throats cut and 

that in recent months, staff of the Zirve publishing house 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 420 IH 

had allegedly received death threats from groups accusing 

them of missionary activities; 

Whereas Turkish police were reported to have already arrested eleven men and were reported to intend to arrest 

a twelfth suspect who was hospitalized after jumping out 

of a window to try to escape arrest; 

Whereas the Government of Turkey has moved quickly to 

prosecute those individuals responsible for the murders; 

Whereas the Government of Turkey condemned the attack as 

savagery and moved to investigate possible links with terror groups; 

Whereas a Turkish court adjudicating the brutal murders of 

the three victims brought terrorism and murder charges 

against four suspects and charged one suspect with aiding a terrorist group; and 

Whereas it is in the interest of the Government of Turkey to 

promote religious liberty and freedom of peaceful religious expression in Turkey: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) strongly condemns the murders of the three 

3 Christian workers on April 18, 2007, in Turkey; 

4 (2) expresses appreciation to the Government of 

5 Turkey for its statements condemning the murders; 

6 (3) supports the efforts of the Government of 

7 Turkey to swiftly investigate and prosecute those in8 dividuals responsible for the murders in order to un9 derline the defense of all residents and citizens of 

10 Turkey from attacks by Islamic extremists; 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 420 IH 

1 (4) urges the Government of Turkey to take 

2 further steps to help ensure that religious minority 

3 groups in Turkey are protected from such acts of 

4 crime, terror, and violence by Islamic extremists; 

5 and 

6 (5) urges the Government of Turkey to promote 

7 freedom of speech and peaceful religious expression 

8 in Turkey. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
No. 60518.

#### American Wine Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 262783-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: ptlmom@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:07:04 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Susie Mickle

Crystal Lake, IL 60014
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6960

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EMJADIA PORTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-94-37, CA-00-679-7)

Submitted: October 24, 2001 Decided: November 7, 2001

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emjadia Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Emjadia Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001)

and his motion for reconsideration. Porter challenged his conviction and sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). Because Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases

on collateral review, the district court properly denied relief on

this claim. United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 151 (4th Cir.

2001), pet. for cert. filed (Oct. 9, 2001) (No. 01-6715). We find

that the district court properly found that Porter’s remaining

claim was successive. In re Taylor, 171 F.3d 185, 187-88 (4th Cir.

1999). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
From: emms07@ec.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:34:17 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Eunice Small

Wilmington, NC 28411
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

D. Clay Holcomb et al., * From the 118th District Court

 of Martin County

 Trial Court No. 6905.

Vs. No. 11-16-00215-CV * August 3, 2017

Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P., * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has considered the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this appeal 

and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with 

this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of 

this appeal are taxed against the party incurring same.
No. 66490.

#### French Velvets, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 299276-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon pile ribbons similar in use to silk pile ribbons and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Sternberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained as follows: (1) The items marked “A” at 25 percent under said paragraph 1206, as modified by T.D. 51802; and (2) the items marked “B” at 23% percent under said paragraph, as modified by T.D. 54108.