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

[633 NYS2d 280]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered January 15, 1993, convicting defendants, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing them, as second violent felony offenders, to concurrent terms of 121/2 to 25 years and three terms of 71/2 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

*371The jury’s verdict as to each defendant was based on overwhelming evidence.

We reject defendants’ contention that they were entitled to CPL 710.30 notice and a *Wade*hearing as to identifications made by two police officers. One police officer pursued defendants as they ran from a car and jumped over a wall into Central Park, lost sight of them, but, moments later, identified each in the custody of the apprehending officers. The other police officer also saw the defendants exit the car and climb the wall, but he remained at the vehicle with a third suspect until one of the defendants was apprehended and returned to that location. The identifications made by both of these trained officers at the location of the defendants’ apprehension, and at the precinct, were sufficiently connected and contemporaneous in both time and location to the defendants’ arrest as to constitute the ordinary and proper completion of an integral police procedure *(People v Manick,*190 AD2d 624, *Iv denied*81 NY2d 1016; *see, People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921; *cf., People v Dixon,*85 NY2d 218).

Defendant James’ claim that he was improperly excluded from a voir dire sidebar conference does not require reversal since the voir dire in this case preceded decision in *People v Antommarchi*(80 NY2d 247) recognizing such right *(People v Mitchell,*80 NY2d 519), and the factors which would support a challenge under *People v Sloan*(79 NY2d 386) are not present here.

Since the toy gun recovered at the scene of the crime, in close proximity to the victim’s handbag, as well as to the getaway car, may have been an additional instrumentality of the crime, it tended to prove a material fact *(People v Scarola,*71 NY2d 769, 777), and was properly introduced into evidence.

We reject defendant James’ challenge to the constitutionality of his predicate felony conviction *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9).

We have considered defendants’ remaining claims and find them to be meritless. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.
Before the Second Division,

October 17, 1962

No. 67133.

protests 322433-K and 322435-K (New York).

#### Kaiser Reismann Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “C” consist of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc.,*and *Wood Niebuhr & Co.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim at 3 cents per pound under the provision in paragraph 1507 of the act as bristles, sorted, bunched, or prepared, by similitude under paragraph 1559, as amended, was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of perlón fishing lines similar in use to silk fishing lines the same in all material respects as those the subject of *J. M. P. R. Trading Corp., Alltransport, Inc.*v. *United States*(43 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 600), were held dutiable at 30% percent under the provision in paragraph 1211, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for manufactures of silk, by similitude, as claimed. *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), followed as to the items marked “B.”
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

26 MINUTE ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married individual,

d/b/a ‘GORDONWORKS.COM’; OMNI

INNOVATIONS, LLC., a Washington limited

liability company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIRTUMUNDO, INC., a Delaware corporation,

d/b/a ADNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM;

ADKNOWLEDGE, INC., a Delaware

corporation, d/b/a AKNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM;

SCOTT LYNN, an individual; and JOHN DOES,

1–X,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-204JCC

MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 

Coughenour, United States District Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 47). 

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1), which provides in pertinent part

that “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored” and that the Court “will ordinarily deny such motions

in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(h)(1). 

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 48 Filed 11/13/2006 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 48

Dockets.Justia.com
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

26 MINUTE ORDER – 2

Defendants have made no such showing. Accordingly, their motion is DENIED. 

DATED this 13th day of November, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk of Court

By /s/ C. Ledesma 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 48 Filed 11/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### Jerry SELLERS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Officer WARING; Detective Hardy; Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-1339.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 20, 2005.

Decided Aug. 3, 2005.

*122Jerry Sellers, Appellant Pro Se.

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Sellers appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.**See Sellers v. Waring,*No. CA-05-373-8-RWT (D.Md. filed Feb. 22, 2005 & entered Feb. 23, 2005). 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*

*

Although we find that Sellers’s excessive force claim falls under the Fourth Amendment exception to *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), we nonetheless affirm the district court’s dismissal of this claim on the ground that Sellers fails to allege that he suffered more than de minimis injury. *See Carter v. Morris,*164 F.3d 215, 219 n. 3 (4th Cir.1999) (finding that claim that handcuffs were too tight was too insubstantial to state a claim of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment).
#### Jamie Lamont MILES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6310.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided Aug. 24, 2005.

*209Jamie Lamont Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jamie Lamont Miles seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Miles’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miles has not made the requisite showing. 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*
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

October 29, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14841

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00078-CR-WDO-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRENTON HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(October 29, 2008)

Before BIRCH, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Reza Sedghi, appointed counsel for Trenton Harris, has filed a renewed
motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and

Harris’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
Lease Agreement of Xuelingxian Crude Medicinal Herbs





Standard Planting Base




Contract No: SCZD 2010-001


Party A:Anhui Xuelingxian Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.


Party B: Meng Wang Village Committee of Dayang Town of Qiaocheng District in Bozhou City





The two parties have made the agreement for establishing Xuelingxian Crude Medicinal Herbs Standard Planting Base in Meng Wang Village of Dayang Town of Qiaocheng District in Bozhou; and Party A only signs the Lease Agreement of Xuelingxian Crude Medicinal Herbs Standard Planting Basewith Party B, and it will not sign the agreement with all the farmers, the detailed content is as follows:





Responsibilities and obligations of Party A:


1.
Take charge of the land selection, design of the implemented plan and guidance of planting technology.


2.
Investment scope:


(1)
Land lease fees: 14.9706 million Yuan for one year, from Jan. 1 of 2010 to Dec. 31 of 2010, covering the land area of 8000 Chinese Mu (about 533 hectare).


(2)
Provide the seeds and planting.


(3)
Management fees: Including the fees of manual transplant, field management, test observation, seeds harvesting, base management and relevant issues.


3.
Record management: It shall guarantee that all the test and observation record are real and reliable.


The unmentioned matters herein will be solved by the negotiation of two parties.








Party A:Anhui Xuelingxian Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.


Signature:


Date: January 1, 2010





Party B: Meng Wang Village Committee of Dayang Town of Qiaocheng District in Bozhou





Signature:


Date: January 1, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

BRUCE RIFKIN 700 STEWART ST.

 CLERK SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

June 18, 2007

Cathy Catterson, Clerk

U.S. Court of Appeals

95 7th Street

San Francisco, CA 94103

RE: Civil Appeal

James S. Gordon, Jr., et al. vs. Virtumundo, Inc., et al., CV06-204JCC

Under cover of this letter please find:

U Notice of Appeal

U Docket Fee Payment Notification

U Copy of Docket Entries

U Copy of Order(s) on Appeal

U Civil Appeals Docketing Statement forwarded to Mediator's Office in Seattle

U Copy of this cover letter (CCA only). Please date stamp and return with CCA docket number.

Transcript Designation and Ordering Form to be filed. See www.uscourts.gov for form . [To Appellant

only. Under Circuit Rule 10-3.1(c) appellant required to file this form within thirty days of filing Notice

of Appeal.] Please note service requirements.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk of Court

By s/Shelly Andrew 

 Appeals Clerk

cc: All counsel of record [FRAP 3(d)]

Enclosure(s)

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 126 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 1

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 126

Dockets.Justia.com
#### DEN NORSKE BANK A/S, Plaintiff-Petitioner-Appellee, v. VANDA REST. CORP. and Aras Vebeliunas, Respondents-Appellants, Litas International, Inc., and Litas Investing Co., Defendants.

Docket No. 00-7164.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 14, 2001.

Norman A. Olch, New York, NY, for appellants. John M. Toriello; James V. Marks, of counsel, Haight, Gardner, Holland & Knight, New York, NY, for appellee.

Present CABRANES, STRAUB and SACK, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Vanda Rest. Corp. and Aras Vebeliunas appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered on February 16, 2000 after a bench trial.2 The District Court held that appellants’ transfers of two mortgages and notes on certain Florida real property were both actually and constructively fraudulent as to Den norske Bank under New York’s Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273-a3 and 276,4 and that they were designed to frustrate appellee’s efforts to enforce a multi-million dollar judgment against two entities closely related to appellants, Litas International, Inc., and Litas Investing. The Court entered judgment directing appellants to turn over the relevant mortgages and notes, and to pay appellees the proceeds from the fraudulent conveyances, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.

We have considered all of appellants’ contentions on appeal and find them to be without merit. Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court, substantially for the reasons stated by Chief *29Judge Wolle in his careful and comprehensive ruling dated December 13,1999.

2

. Various captions appear in the documents relating to the proceedings below, and all of them differ from the caption on appeal. We have revised the caption in a manner we deem appropriate.

3

. Section 273-a provides: "Every conveyance made without fair consideration when the person making it is a defendant in an action for money damages or a judgment in such an action has been docketed against him, is fraudulent as to the plaintiff in that action without regard to the actual intent of the defendant if, after final judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant fails to satisfy the judgment.”

4

. Section 276 provides: "Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred with actual intent, as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent as to both present and future creditors.”
No. 66032.

#### F. W. Woolworth Company *v.*United States,

protest 60/9174 (New York.

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of mats similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 57261, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

26

27

28

NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

phone: (206) 274-2800

fax: (206) 274-2801

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 24th day of August, 2006, I electronically 

filed the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, [PROPOSED] ORDER

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such

filing to the following:

Via Notice of Electronic Filing to:

Robert Siegel, Esq.

Email: bob@msfseattle.com

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of

Washington that the forgoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on August

24th, 2006, at Seattle, Washington.

________________________

Diana Au

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 30-3 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 1 of 1

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 30 Att. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
No. 62267.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 319286-K (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: cjersett@uwsuper.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:34:37 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,

Christopher Jersett

Superior, WI 54880
No. 58258.

protest 193930-K (Philadelphia).

#### Chas. Kruz Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that the sheets and strips are not ores, concentrates, or crude metal; that said sheets and strips were imported to be used in remanufacture by melting; and that after importation they were melted and manufactured into aluminum ingots. An examination of the papers disclosed that affidavits have been filed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, *supra.*Upon the record presented, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Laws 613 and 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
Beeore the Third Division,

October 27, 1966

No. P66/310. —

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 60/15271, etc. (New York). *825Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 65/20897 and 65/20898 (New York).

No. P66/311. —

Landis, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “D” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore*& *Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), and that the items of merchandise marked “T” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay*Company, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### AMERICAN ALKALI CO. v. SALOM.

(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

December 11, 1903.)

No. 67.

Burr, Brown & Lloyd,, for plaintiff. Joseph O. Fraley and Richard C. Dale, for defendant.

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The learned counsel of the plaintiff, in their brief in support of their motion for a new trial, asked “that the court will write an opinion which will not only determine the law of this case, but will also furnish counsel a guide as to the law in the many other cases dependent upon it”; and upon the oral argument I remarked that this request was in accordance with my usual practice and would be complied with. But upon reflection I. have come to the conclusion that no practical result would be attained by either the reiteration or retraction by myself of the views I entertained upon the trial. As is said in the brief to which I have referred, the court ruled upon a very obvious theory of the case, and no opinion other than that of the appellate court can really determine the law with respect to it, or furnish a guide which could be confidently followed upon the trial of the many others which are said to be dependent upon it. The plaintiff has. presented and will be allowed a bill of exceptions, and is therefore in position to be heard by the Court of Appeals at its ensuing March term; whereas, if a new trial were awarded, the cause could not be brought before that tribunal by either party until the following September. This delay, I think, should be avoided. The plaintiff’s rule for a new trial is discharged.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-18-00111-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 297th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1402992D

Before Birdwell, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Bassel, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

HECTOR MARTINEZ RIVERA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We abated this appeal for the trial court to determine why appellant had not 

timely filed a brief. In accordance with our order, the trial court held a hearing at 

which the judge inquired whether appellant desired to continue his appeal. Appellant

stated unequivocally that after consulting with his attorney, he had voluntarily decided 

not to continue his appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Hendrix v. State, 86 

S.W.3d 762, 763–64 (Tex. App.––Waco 2002, no pet.); Conners v. State, 966 S.W.2d 

108, 109–11 (Tex. App.––Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 2, 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: December 31, 2018