alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00496-CV

ASA GROUP, LTD.,

Appellant

v.

THE UNITED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and The Laredo Community College

District,

Appellees

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-TXA-000750-D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 30, 2015

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED 

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). Appellant also requests that each party be ordered to bear its own appellate costs. 

However, the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties regarding the assessment of 

costs; accordingly, all costs of appeal will be assessed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(d) (absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
No. 66557.

#### Antonio B. Caragol and Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/3253 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of diving masks similar, in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63864, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,060                   5,060
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,386                  29,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,938                   1,938
<INVENTORY>                                     17,769                  17,769
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,814                  59,814
<PP&E>                                          17,346                  17,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,758                   5,758
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,436                  93,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,644                  51,644
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            87                      87
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,905                  25,905
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,436                  93,436
<SALES>                                         40,673                  57,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,673                  57,925
<CGS>                                           29,500                  42,815
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,500                  42,815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,077                  17,170
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    47                     124
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 796                   1,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,055                 (3,745)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,055                 (3,745)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,055                 (3,745)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06                     .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06                     .22


</TABLE>
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 16 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

KENNEDY DENETCLAW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-2152

(D.C. No. CIV-98-75)

(Dist. New Mex.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9.

Kennedy Denetclaw was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon,

assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and maiming. The conviction was

affirmed. See United States v. Denetclaw, 96 F.3d 454 (10th Cir. 1996). Relying
-2-

on a separate concurrence in our opinion in Denetclaw, Mr. Denetclaw contends

in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that his Sixth Amendment right to effective

assistance of counsel was violated when his attorney in the criminal action did not

properly object to the admission of his tribal court guilty plea, which was used to

impeach his credibility. The district court held that Mr. Denetclaw’s Sixth

Amendment rights were not violated, granted a Certificate of Appealability, and

denied Mr. Denetclaw’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We grant

ifp status and affirm.

Mr. Denetclaw’s section 2255 petition was referred to a magistrate judge

who wrote a careful analysis explaining why Mr. Denetclaw’s right to effective

assistance of counsel was not violated under the standards set out in Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The district court adopted that analysis. 

Because we agree substantially with the magistrate judge’s Recommended

Disposition, we hold that Mr. Denetclaw received effective assistance of counsel

in his criminal trial and appeal.

The judgment of the district court denying Mr. Denetclaw’s section 2255

petition is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Percon Incorporated and Subsidiaries as of March
31 1998 and the related consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the
three months in the period ended March 31 1998 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            2533
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6320
<ALLOWANCES>                                        82
<INVENTORY>                                       4425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 13983
<PP&E>                                            4352
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1844)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   17944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2565
<BONDS>                                            708
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          9305
<OTHER-SE>                                        4953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     17944
<SALES>                                           7058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  7058
<CGS>                                             3610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1150
<INCOME-TAX>                                       726
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                726
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       726
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
No. 62297.

#### International Packers, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 312630-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), 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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(Deborah Dominique; CR06-110 RSM) (206) 553-1100

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATE MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL - 1

 JUDGE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

DEBORAH DOMINIQUE, MYRON

CURRY,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-110 RSM

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

THE COURT having considered the stipulated motion of the parties, the records

and files herein, the Court hereby makes the following findings:

1. The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel

the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the

exercise of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

2. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a

continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to insure effective trial

preparation and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public in a more

speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

//

//

//

//

Case 2:06-cr-00110-RSM Document 63 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 2
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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(Deborah Dominique; CR06-110 RSM) (206) 553-1100

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATE MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL - 2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date is extended from

July 31, 2006, to October 23, 2006. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before

September 7.

DONE this 5th day of July, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/Nancy Tenney 

WSBA No. 35304

Attorney for Deborah Dominique

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

206/553-1100

206/553-0120

nancy_tenney@fd.org

s/Robert Leen

WSBA 14208

Attorney for Myron Curry

600 University St, Suite 3310

Seattle, WA 98101

206/748-7817

206/748-7821

bob@leenlaw.com

s/Vincent Lombardi

Assistant United States Attorney 

700 Stewart St., Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101-1271

206/553-4213

Vince.Lombardi@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00110-RSM Document 63 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:05-mc-05029-RSL Document 45 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 1 of 2

Case 3:06-cv-05173-RBL Document 3 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-mc-05029-RSL Document 45 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 2 of 2

Case 3:06-cv-05173-RBL Document 3 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND THE STATEMENTS OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES AND IS QUALIFED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,245,096
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,086,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,025,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,086,131
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               220,331
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,346
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (248,426)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (233,535)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6879

LEAMON L. TATUM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner, Division of Corrections; JOHN SANDSTORM, Division of Corrections' Inmate Citation Adjuster; THOMAS PRICE,

Division of Corrections' Inmate Citation

Adjuster; LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; WAYNE W.

LEASE, Correctional Officer I; G. WIBLE, Correctional Officer II,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

DIVISION OF CORRECTION; MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA96-3899-S)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997
2

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leamon L. Tatum, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Glenn T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Leamon A. Tatum appeals the district court's grant of summary

judgment in favor of the Defendant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994),

action and the district court's grant of an extension of time for

the Defendant to respond to Tatum's complaint. We affirm.

Addressing the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, we

note that the court twice informed Tatum of the necessity to

respond under Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).

Despite these warnings, Tatum failed to respond with any evidence

meeting the standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Thus, summary

judgment was properly entered in favor of the Defendant.

Turning to the motion for an extension of time, we find no

abuse of discretion in the district court's grant of this motion

where the request came shortly after the expiration of the response

period. Accordingly, we affirm the district court in all respects.

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
# Official Journal L 228/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 228 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 582 September 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 228

English edition

Legislation

Volume 582 September 2015

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1483 of 1 September 2015 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India following and absorption reinvestigation pursuant to Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 | 1 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1484 of 1 September 2015 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 11 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1483 of 1 September 2015 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India following and absorption reinvestigation pursuant to Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009

1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1484 of 1 September 2015 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

11

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Case No. 14,256.

#### TURNER v. GREEN et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 202.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1820.

.Promissory Note — Evidence—Subscribing Witness-Admissions.

1. The making of a promissory note can only be proved by the subscribing witness, if there be one.

2. Evidence of the confession of the maker that he owes part of it. is not sufficient on the money counts.

[See Case No. .14,261.]

Assumpsit upon a promissory note, and the common money counts.

Mr. Marbury, for plaintiff,

offers to prove the handwriting of the defendants [Green & Johnson], the makers of the note, by other testimony than that of the subscribing witness, without accounting for his absence.

But

THE COURT

(nem. con.) rejected the evidence. He then offered to prove that the ■defendant Johnson confessed a balance of -$300 due on the note, and promised to pay it; and contended that this was good evidence on the count for money had and received.

But THE COURT (CRANCH, Chief Judge, doubting) rejected the evidence.

THE COURT offered to save the point, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on the question of evidence, but Mr. Marbury refused to pay the jury fee; and THE COURT instructed the jury that there was no evidence before them to support the .action.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999             MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998             NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,340,000               4,340,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,644,000               1,644,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (147,000)               (147,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    179,000                 179,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,085,000               6,085,000
<PP&E>                                      16,230,000              16,230,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,098,000)             (5,098,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,400,000              30,400,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,815,000               5,815,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       283,000                 283,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,400,000              30,400,000
<SALES>                                      4,407,000               9,329,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,705,000              12,088,000
<CGS>                                        4,131,000               8,714,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,287,000              11,110,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             163,000                 333,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                255,000                 645,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    48,000                 122,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   207,000                 523,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01                     .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01                     .02
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Medwave, Inc. (the “Company”) for thequarterly period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onFebruary 14, 2007 (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates listed below, herebycertifies that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.This Certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and Item 601(b)(32) ofRegulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and shall not be deemedpart of the Report or “filed” for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.Date: February 14, 2007         By:                                         /s/ Frank A. Katarow    Frank A. Katarow    Chief Executive Officer (Interim)