alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Second Division,

September 3, 1953

No. 57475.

#### Jay Thorpe, Inc., and W. J. Byrnes Co. of N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 180575-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of articles in chief value of beads, not ornamented with beads, the same in all material respects as those the classification of which was involved in Abstract 56124, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions 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, th is panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a dec ision 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 d angerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and mai ming. 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 Certi ficate of Appealability, and denied Mr. Denetclaw’s motion to proceed in forma p auperis 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. Den etclaw’s right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated under the st andards 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 ef fective assistance of counsel in his criminal trial and appeal. The judgment of the district court denying Mr. Dene tclaw’s section 2255 petition is AFFIRMED
. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
No. 61107.

protests 288329-K and 289569-K (New York).

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion, by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of photographic lenses, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 A1 50 1 . J OHNNY J . UNI ON v . THE STATE.

In M ay 2 0 1 9, J o h n n y J

. Un i o n p l ed g ui l t y t o en t eri n g an au to m o b i l e, fo r wh i ch
h e was s en t en ced t o fi v e y ears o f p ro b at i o n

. On Decem b er 1 0, 2 0 19 , t h e t ri al co u rt

rev o k ed t h ree y ears o f U n i o n ’ s p ro bat i o n. T h ereaft er, on Feb ru ary 7
, 2 0 20
, Un i o n fi led a p ro s e n o t ice o f ap peal

. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n fo r t wo reas o n s

. Fi rs t , an a p p l i c a t i o n fo r d i s cret i o nary ap p eal i s req ui red t o ap p eal o rd ers

rev o k i n g p ro bat i o n

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (5 ); s ee To d d v. S t a te , 2 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. 7 5 7,
7 5 8 (5 1 3 SE2 d 2 8 7 ) (1 9 99 ) (h o l d i n g t h at w h ere th e u n d erl y i n g s u b ject m a t t er i s
p ro b at i o n rev o cat io n , t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u re ap p l i es ); acco rd W h i t e v. S t a t e , 2 3 3 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 3 , 8 7 4 (5 0 5 SE2 d 2 2 8) (1 99 8 ).
Seco n d
, ev en i f Un i o n h ad a ri g h t o f di rect ap p eal
, h i s n o t i ce o f ap peal was n ot

t i m el y fi l ed

. A no t i ce o f ap p eal m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 day s o f e n t r y o f t h e o rd er

s o u g ht t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e p ro per an d t im el y fi li n g o f a n o t i ce

o f ap p eal i s an ab s o l u t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ju ri s d ict i o n o n t h i s Co u rt

. R o wl a n d v. S t a t e , 2 6 4 Ga. 8 72 , 8 7 2 (1 ) (4 5 2 SE2 d 7 5 6 ) (1 9 9 5 ). Un i o n ’ s n o t i ce o f ap p eal , fi l ed March 23, 20205 9 d ay s aft er t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s rev o cat i o n o rd er, was u n ti m el y

.

Fo r t h es e reas o ns , we lack j u r i s d i ct io n ov er t h i s ap p eal
, w h i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/23/2020
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 197 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 197

Designating May 6, 1998, as ``National Eating Disorders Awareness Day'' 
    to heighten awareness and stress prevention of eating disorders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 1998

Mr. Reid submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating May 6, 1998, as ``National Eating Disorders Awareness Day'' 
    to heighten awareness and stress prevention of eating disorders.

Whereas over 8,000,000 Americans suffer from eating disorders, including 
        anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and compulsive eating;
Whereas 1 in 10 individuals with anorexia nervosa will die;
Whereas 1 in 4 college-age women struggle with an eating disorder;
Whereas 80 percent of young women believe they are overweight;
Whereas 52 percent of girls report dieting before the age of 13;
Whereas 30 percent of 9-year-old girls fear becoming overweight;
Whereas the incidence of anorexia nervosa and bulimia has doubled over the last 
        decade, and anorexia nervosa and bulimia is striking younger 
        populations;
Whereas the epidemiologic profile of individuals with eating disorders includes 
        all racial and socio-economic backgrounds;
Whereas eating disorders cause immeasurable suffering for both victims and 
        families of the victim;
Whereas individuals suffering from eating disorders lose the ability to function 
        effectively, representing a great personal loss, as well as a loss to 
        society;
Whereas the treatment of eating disorders is often extremely expensive;
Whereas there is a widespread educational deficit of information about eating 
        disorders;
Whereas the majority of cases of eating disorders last from 1 to 15 years; and
Whereas the immense suffering surrounding eating disorders, the high cost of 
        treatment for eating disorders, and the longevity of these illnesses 
        make it imperative that we acknowledge the importance of education, 
        early detection, and prevention programs: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designates May 6, 1998, as ``National 
Eating Disorders Awareness Day'' to heighten awareness and stress 
prevention of eating disorders.
                                 <all>
```
Case No. 12,959.

#### SLOUGHTON v. HILL.

[See Case No. 13.501.]
Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 1 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 1 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 10
Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 1 Filed 12/05/05 Page 3 of 10
Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 1 Filed 12/05/05 Page 4 of 10
Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 1 Filed 12/05/05 Page 5 of 10
Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 1 Filed 12/05/05 Page 6 of 10
Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 1 Filed 12/05/05 Page 7 of 10
Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 1 Filed 12/05/05 Page 8 of 10
Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 1 Filed 12/05/05 Page 9 of 10
Case 3:05-cv-05778-FDB Document 1 Filed 12/05/05 Page 10 of 10
1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2050

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District Court of Minnesota. Jose Sanchez-Pacheco, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 6, 2000 Filed: April 10, 2000

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jose Sanchez-Pacheco challenges the sentence imposed by the District Court 1 after

he pleaded guilty to being found in the United States without the Attorney General’s consent after

having been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) (Supp. IV 1998). His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the 16-level enhancement

to Sanchez-Pacheco’s base offense level under U.S. Sentencing-2-

Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (1998) was unwarranted. Although we granted Sanchez-Pacheco permission to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so. As part of his plea agreement, Sanchez-Pacheco stipulated to the 16-level enhancement, and he does not challenge the validity of the plea agreement or seek to withdraw from it. Thus, we conclude that he may not challenge this application of the Guidelines on appeal. See UnitedStates v. Barrett , 173 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir. 1999). Having reviewed the record in accordance with Pensonv. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 63902.

protests 59/23005, etc. (New York).

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59557, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DANIEL WILLIAM SHREVE,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-66M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count 1: Arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 844(l).

Date of Detention Hearing: February 21, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f),

finds that there appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than detention

that will reasonably address the risk of flight or danger to the community, based on the

following:

(1) Defendant is facing a significant penalty on the charge which involves a

serious offense.

(2) Little information regarding defendant’s ties to the Western District of

Washington or to this community has been provided to the Court.

Case 2:06-cr-00154-JCC Document 17 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(3) Defendant has stipulated to detention, reserving the right to contest his

continued detention if there is a change in circumstances.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the

extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in

custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation

with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which

defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal

for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United

States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00154-JCC Document 17 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

In the Interest of A.V. and C.V., children.)

________________________________ )

)

E.N., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-222

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM )

PROGRAM, )

)

Appellees. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed May 30, 2018. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Emily A. Peacock, 

Judge.

Jessica C. Tien of Tien Law Group, 

Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tampa, and Mary Soorus, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee

Department of Children and Family 

Services.

Laura J. Lee, Sanford, for Appellee 

Guardian ad Litem Program.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KHALID O. RAHMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIERCE COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5262 BHS/KLS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the

Honorable Karen L. Strombom (Dkt. 57). The Court has considered the Report and

Recommendation and the remainder of the file and hereby dismisses Plaintiff’s claims

without prejudice for the reasons stated herein.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 30, 2007, Defendants moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 50. Plaintiff

did not respond to the motion. On March 6, 2008, Magistrate Judge Strombom filed a Report

and Recommendation recommending dismissal for failure to create a genuine issue of fact as

to Plaintiff’s claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and as to his state claims.

Dkt. 57. The Report and Recommendation construes Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the

Motion for Summary Judgment as an admission that the motion has merit, pursuant to Local

Rule CR 7(b)(2), and thoroughly addresses the merits of Defendants’ motion. See Dkt. 57. 

Case 3:06-cv-05262-BHS Document 62 Filed 05/29/08 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 ORDER - 2

Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and Recommendation. On March 26, 2008,

the Court renoted the Report and Recommendation because it was unclear whether Plaintiff

had received a copy of the motion for summary judgment and because Plaintiff had not

received a copy of the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 60 at 2. The Court warned

Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute if

Plaintiff failed to update his address on or before May 21, 2008. Id. To date, Plaintiff has

failed to inform the Court of his current address..

II. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

prosecute pursuant to Local Rule CR 41(b)(2).

DATED this 29th day of May, 2008.

A 

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05262-BHS Document 62 Filed 05/29/08 Page 2 of 2
|    |                                                                                                    |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Bazaarvoice, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                       |
|-----------------------|
|                       |  |  |
| Date: August 28, 2017 | /s/ James R. Offerdahl |
|                  |   | James R. Offerdahl |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                  |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
Before the Third Division,

October 30, 1967

No. P67/369.

#### Root’s *v.*United States, protest 66/76227 (New York)

Bici-iardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the principles involved herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Washington State Liquor Control Board*(34 CCPA 118, C.A.D. 352), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                    5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
UNAUDITED CONDENSED FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 30,
1998,  QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM  10-QSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1
<CURRENCY>                                          U. S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                          SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                 1
<CASH>                                                      1,762
<SECURITIES>                                              184,607
<RECEIVABLES>                                             814,971
<ALLOWANCES>                                              583,855
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          867,077
<PP&E>                                                     28,655
<DEPRECIATION>                                             27,408
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          1,080,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   2,378,609
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                    3,090
<OTHER-SE>                                              3,083,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            1,080,864
<SALES>                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           21,365
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          457,381
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0
        

</TABLE>